Comparison of quantitative Krenning Scores with visual assessment in 99m Tc-EDDA/HYNIC-TOC SPECT-CT.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Nuclear Medicine Communications Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-27 DOI:10.1097/MNM.0000000000001967
Alastair J Gemmell, Colin M Brown, Surajit Ray, Alexander Small
{"title":"Comparison of quantitative Krenning Scores with visual assessment in 99m Tc-EDDA/HYNIC-TOC SPECT-CT.","authors":"Alastair J Gemmell, Colin M Brown, Surajit Ray, Alexander Small","doi":"10.1097/MNM.0000000000001967","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this study is to assess inter-observer variability of the Krenning Score for 99m Tc-EDDA/HYNIC-TOC single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)-computed tomography (CT) images and compare against quantitative metrics obtained from tumour and physiological uptake measurements.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-two patients with 117 lesions visible on 99m Tc-EDDA/HYNIC-TOC SPECT-CT were scored by two expert observers using the Krenning Score. Five observers with less extensive experience also scored the lesions on visual assessment. Inter-observer agreement and comparison to the expert consensus was tested. Three observers made quantitative measurements of the lesions and physiological uptake, with intra-observer and inter-observer variation investigated. Assessment of agreement between quantitative metrics and the expert visual consensus was also made.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Inter-observer agreement for visual assessment was 44.3% for proportions of agreement and 0.576 for Fleiss' Kappa, whilst for the best-performing quantitative metric the inter-observer Fleiss' Kappa was equal to 1. The agreement with expert consensus for the best-performing visual observer was 89.8% for percentage of agreement and 0.914 for Cohen's Kappa, similar to the best-performing quantitative metric (a derived quantitative Krenning Score) at 86.4% and κ  = 0.877. Standardised uptake value maximum (SUV max ) also showed similar levels of agreement at 85.1% and κ  = 0.871.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A derived quantitative Krenning Score, or alternatively SUV max , can provide similar levels of agreement with an expert consensus Krenning Score as visual assessment, with reduced inter-observer variability. Quantification can deliver greater consistency in scoring of 99m Tc-EDDA/HYNIC-TOC images over visual assessment, an important factor when imaging is used to determine patient eligibility for peptide receptor radiotherapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":19708,"journal":{"name":"Nuclear Medicine Communications","volume":" ","pages":"515-522"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nuclear Medicine Communications","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0000000000001967","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study is to assess inter-observer variability of the Krenning Score for 99m Tc-EDDA/HYNIC-TOC single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)-computed tomography (CT) images and compare against quantitative metrics obtained from tumour and physiological uptake measurements.

Methods: Thirty-two patients with 117 lesions visible on 99m Tc-EDDA/HYNIC-TOC SPECT-CT were scored by two expert observers using the Krenning Score. Five observers with less extensive experience also scored the lesions on visual assessment. Inter-observer agreement and comparison to the expert consensus was tested. Three observers made quantitative measurements of the lesions and physiological uptake, with intra-observer and inter-observer variation investigated. Assessment of agreement between quantitative metrics and the expert visual consensus was also made.

Results: Inter-observer agreement for visual assessment was 44.3% for proportions of agreement and 0.576 for Fleiss' Kappa, whilst for the best-performing quantitative metric the inter-observer Fleiss' Kappa was equal to 1. The agreement with expert consensus for the best-performing visual observer was 89.8% for percentage of agreement and 0.914 for Cohen's Kappa, similar to the best-performing quantitative metric (a derived quantitative Krenning Score) at 86.4% and κ  = 0.877. Standardised uptake value maximum (SUV max ) also showed similar levels of agreement at 85.1% and κ  = 0.871.

Conclusion: A derived quantitative Krenning Score, or alternatively SUV max , can provide similar levels of agreement with an expert consensus Krenning Score as visual assessment, with reduced inter-observer variability. Quantification can deliver greater consistency in scoring of 99m Tc-EDDA/HYNIC-TOC images over visual assessment, an important factor when imaging is used to determine patient eligibility for peptide receptor radiotherapy.

99mTc-EDDA/HYNIC-TOC SPECT-CT定量克伦宁评分与目测比较。
目的:本研究的目的是评估99mTc-EDDA/ hyic - toc单光子发射计算机断层扫描(SPECT)-计算机断层扫描(CT)图像的克伦宁评分的观察者间变异性,并与从肿瘤和生理摄取测量中获得的定量指标进行比较。方法:对32例99mTc-EDDA/ hynicc - toc SPECT-CT上可见的117个病灶,由2名专家观察员采用克伦宁评分法进行评分。五名经验较少的观察员也在视觉评估中对病变进行了评分。测试了观察者之间的一致意见和与专家共识的比较。三名观察者对病变和生理摄取进行了定量测量,并研究了观察者内部和观察者之间的差异。并对定量指标与专家视觉共识的一致性进行了评价。结果:观察者间对视觉评估的一致性比例为44.3%,Fleiss Kappa为0.576,而对于表现最好的定量度量,观察者间Fleiss Kappa等于1。表现最佳的视觉观察者与专家共识的一致性百分比为89.8%,科恩Kappa为0.914,类似于表现最佳的定量指标(派生的定量克伦宁评分)为86.4%,κ = 0.877。标准化摄取值最大值(SUVmax)也显示出相似的一致性水平,为85.1%,κ = 0.871。结论:一个衍生的定量克伦宁评分,或者SUVmax,可以提供与专家共识克伦宁评分相似的一致性水平作为视觉评估,减少了观察者之间的可变性。量化可以提供99mTc-EDDA/ hynicc - toc图像评分比视觉评估更大的一致性,这是影像学用于确定患者是否适合肽受体放疗的重要因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
212
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Nuclear Medicine Communications, the official journal of the British Nuclear Medicine Society, is a rapid communications journal covering nuclear medicine and molecular imaging with radionuclides, and the basic supporting sciences. As well as clinical research and commentary, manuscripts describing research on preclinical and basic sciences (radiochemistry, radiopharmacy, radiobiology, radiopharmacology, medical physics, computing and engineering, and technical and nursing professions involved in delivering nuclear medicine services) are welcomed, as the journal is intended to be of interest internationally to all members of the many medical and non-medical disciplines involved in nuclear medicine. In addition to papers reporting original studies, frankly written editorials and topical reviews are a regular feature of the journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信