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

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Alastair J Gemmell, Colin M Brown, Surajit Ray, Alexander Small
{"title":"Comparison of quantitative Krenning Scores with visual assessment in 99mTc-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 99mTc-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 99mTc-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 (SUVmax) 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 SUVmax, 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 99mTc-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":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","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":"","PubModel":"","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 99mTc-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 99mTc-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 (SUVmax) also showed similar levels of agreement at 85.1% and κ = 0.871.

Conclusion: A derived quantitative Krenning Score, or alternatively SUVmax, 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 99mTc-EDDA/HYNIC-TOC images over visual assessment, an important factor when imaging is used to determine patient eligibility for peptide receptor radiotherapy.

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