Publication:
The influence of digital PET/CT on diagnostic certainty and interrater reliability in [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT for recurrent prostate cancer.

cris.virtual.author-orcid0000-0002-1954-736X
cris.virtualsource.author-orcid3f7e3e49-9100-4a4f-8957-9f101279afe7
cris.virtualsource.author-orcid8497fd72-07dc-4061-a2bf-5cd59487b2e3
cris.virtualsource.author-orcid03a6cdf6-f76b-494b-b378-a7129f91b765
cris.virtualsource.author-orcid8af5d20d-9d8f-47d5-be1a-9be3d54840eb
cris.virtualsource.author-orcidc03fd116-7ba8-43e2-86ea-76609dcfd482
cris.virtualsource.author-orcid16650768-b4af-44fc-a7e6-c0a796ba1199
cris.virtualsource.author-orcidbd991341-4294-4586-b80f-40b024a93af3
cris.virtualsource.author-orcidad1a702a-efe4-4ef4-a1f4-f413bd080668
datacite.rightsopen.access
dc.contributor.authorAlberts, Ian Leigh
dc.contributor.authorHünermund, Jan-Niklas
dc.contributor.authorSachpekidis, Christos
dc.contributor.authorMingels, Clemens
dc.contributor.authorFech, Viktor
dc.contributor.authorBohn, Karl Peter
dc.contributor.authorRominger, Axel Oliver
dc.contributor.authorAfshar Oromieh, Ali
dc.date.accessioned2024-10-06T18:52:07Z
dc.date.available2024-10-06T18:52:07Z
dc.date.issued2021-10
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE To investigate the impact of digital PET/CT on diagnostic certainty, patient-based sensitivity and interrater reliability. METHODS Four physicians retrospectively evaluated two matched cohorts of patients undergoing [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT on a digital (dPET/CT n = 65) or an analogue scanner (aPET/CT n = 65) for recurrent prostate cancer between 11/2018 and 03/2019. The number of equivocal and pathological lesions as well as the frequency of discrepant findings and the interrater reliability for the two scanners were compared. RESULTS dPET/CT detected more lesions than aPET/CT (p < 0.001). A higher number of pathological scans were observed for dPET/CT (83% vs. 57%, p < 0.001). The true-positive rate at follow-up was 100% for dPET/CT compared to 84% for aPET/CT (p < 0.001). The proportion of lesions rated as non-pathological as a total of all PSMA-avid lesions detected for dPET/CT was comparable to aPET/CT (61.8% vs. 57.0%, p = 0.99). Neither a higher rate of diagnostically uncertain lesions (11.5% dPET/CT vs. 13.7% aPET/CT, p = 0.95) nor discrepant scans (where one or more readers differed in opinion as to whether the scan is pathological) were observed (18% dPET/CT vs. 17% aPET/CT, p = 0.76). Interrater reliability for pathological lesions was excellent for both scanner types (Cronbach's α = 0.923 dPET/CT; α = 0.948 aPET/CT) and interrater agreement was substantial for dPET/CT (Krippendorf's α = 0.701) and almost perfect in aPET/CT (α = 0.802). CONCLUSIONS A higher detection rate for pathological lesions for dPET/CT compared with aPET/CT in multiple readers was observed. This improved sensitivity was coupled with an improved true-positive rate and was not associated with increased diagnostic uncertainty, rate of non-specific lesions, or reduced interrater reliability. KEY POINTS • New generation digital scanners detect more cancer lesions in men with prostate cancer. • When using digital scanners, the doctors are able to diagnose prostate cancer lesions with better certainty • When using digital scanners, the doctors do not disagree with each other more than with other scanner types.
dc.description.numberOfPages10
dc.description.sponsorshipUniversitätsklinik für Nuklearmedizin
dc.identifier.doi10.48350/161733
dc.identifier.pmid33856522
dc.identifier.publisherDOI10.1007/s00330-021-07870-5
dc.identifier.urihttps://boris-portal.unibe.ch/handle/20.500.12422/57899
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSpringer
dc.relation.ispartofEuropean radiology
dc.relation.issn1432-1084
dc.relation.organizationDCD5A442BAD5E17DE0405C82790C4DE2
dc.subjectMolecular imaging Nuclear medicine Positron emission tomography Prostate cancer
dc.subject.ddc600 - Technology::610 - Medicine & health
dc.titleThe influence of digital PET/CT on diagnostic certainty and interrater reliability in [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT for recurrent prostate cancer.
dc.typearticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
dspace.file.typetext
oaire.citation.endPage8039
oaire.citation.issue10
oaire.citation.startPage8030
oaire.citation.volume31
oairecerif.author.affiliationUniversitätsklinik für Nuklearmedizin
oairecerif.author.affiliationUniversitätsklinik für Nuklearmedizin
oairecerif.author.affiliationUniversitätsklinik für Nuklearmedizin
oairecerif.author.affiliationUniversitätsklinik für Nuklearmedizin
oairecerif.author.affiliationUniversitätsklinik für Nuklearmedizin
oairecerif.author.affiliationUniversitätsklinik für Nuklearmedizin
oairecerif.author.affiliationUniversitätsklinik für Nuklearmedizin
oairecerif.author.affiliationUniversitätsklinik für Nuklearmedizin
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.date.licenseChanged2022-01-05 16:25:02
unibe.description.ispublishedpub
unibe.eprints.legacyId161733
unibe.refereedtrue
unibe.subtype.articlejournal

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Name:
259_2021_Article_5282.pdf
Size:
4.06 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
File Type:
text
License:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Content:
published

Collections