[18F]PSMA-1007 PET/CT对前列腺外展和精囊侵犯的半标准化评价:以组织病理学为参考与MRI的比较

Erland Hvittfeldt, Fredrik Hedeer, Erik Thimansson, Kevin Sandeman, David Minarik, Jacob Ingvar, Anders Bjartell, Elin Trägårdh
{"title":"[18F]PSMA-1007 PET/CT对前列腺外展和精囊侵犯的半标准化评价:以组织病理学为参考与MRI的比较","authors":"Erland Hvittfeldt, Fredrik Hedeer, Erik Thimansson, Kevin Sandeman, David Minarik, Jacob Ingvar, Anders Bjartell, Elin Trägårdh","doi":"10.1186/s41824-024-00234-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) with prostate specific membrane antigen ligands (PSMA) is established for use in primary staging of prostate cancer to screen for metastases. It has also shown promise in local tumor staging, including detection of extraprostatic extension (EPE) and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI). Previous studies have shown high heterogeneity in methods and results. Our aim was to compare [<sup>18</sup>F]PSMA-1007 PET/CT to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in evaluation of EPE and SVI, building on a previously described method for standardized evaluation. We retrospectively included 124 patients who had undergone MRI, PSMA PET/CT and prostatectomy. PSMA PET/CT images were evaluated by two nuclear medicine physicians. Using a standardized method, they measured length of capsular contact (LCC) and assessed EPE and SVI visually with the use of 5-point Likert scales. A radiologist evaluated MRI images using criteria based on Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version and incorporating LCC measurement and Likert scales. We evaluated diagnostic performance with histopathology as reference, and the interrater reliability of the PET evaluations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sensitivity and specificity for detecting EPE with the quantitative LCC method for PSMA PET/CT was 0.46/0.91, for the visual method 0.28/0.82 and for the combination of the two 0.54/0.76. AUC in ROC analysis for the LCC method was 0.70. For MRI the sensitivity and specificity were 0.80/0.64. For SVI, PET/CT and MRI had sensitivity and specificity of 0.14/1.0 and 0.50/0.92 respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the PET LCC measurement was 0.68, the kappa values for the visual Likert scales for PET were 0.53 for EPE and 0.63 for SVI.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study, we attempted to standardize quantitative and qualitative PSMA PET/CT evaluation of EPE and SVI and compare the method with MRI. MRI had a higher sensitivity for EPE while PSMA had a higher specificity. For SVI, both methods had high specificity. The interrater reliability for the PSMA PET/CT evaluations was moderate to substantial.</p>","PeriodicalId":519909,"journal":{"name":"EJNMMI reports","volume":"9 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11695508/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Semi-standardized evaluation of extraprostatic extension and seminal vesicle invasion with [<sup>18</sup>F]PSMA-1007 PET/CT: a comparison to MRI using histopathology as reference.\",\"authors\":\"Erland Hvittfeldt, Fredrik Hedeer, Erik Thimansson, Kevin Sandeman, David Minarik, Jacob Ingvar, Anders Bjartell, Elin Trägårdh\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41824-024-00234-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) with prostate specific membrane antigen ligands (PSMA) is established for use in primary staging of prostate cancer to screen for metastases. It has also shown promise in local tumor staging, including detection of extraprostatic extension (EPE) and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI). Previous studies have shown high heterogeneity in methods and results. Our aim was to compare [<sup>18</sup>F]PSMA-1007 PET/CT to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in evaluation of EPE and SVI, building on a previously described method for standardized evaluation. We retrospectively included 124 patients who had undergone MRI, PSMA PET/CT and prostatectomy. PSMA PET/CT images were evaluated by two nuclear medicine physicians. Using a standardized method, they measured length of capsular contact (LCC) and assessed EPE and SVI visually with the use of 5-point Likert scales. A radiologist evaluated MRI images using criteria based on Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version and incorporating LCC measurement and Likert scales. We evaluated diagnostic performance with histopathology as reference, and the interrater reliability of the PET evaluations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sensitivity and specificity for detecting EPE with the quantitative LCC method for PSMA PET/CT was 0.46/0.91, for the visual method 0.28/0.82 and for the combination of the two 0.54/0.76. AUC in ROC analysis for the LCC method was 0.70. For MRI the sensitivity and specificity were 0.80/0.64. For SVI, PET/CT and MRI had sensitivity and specificity of 0.14/1.0 and 0.50/0.92 respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the PET LCC measurement was 0.68, the kappa values for the visual Likert scales for PET were 0.53 for EPE and 0.63 for SVI.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study, we attempted to standardize quantitative and qualitative PSMA PET/CT evaluation of EPE and SVI and compare the method with MRI. MRI had a higher sensitivity for EPE while PSMA had a higher specificity. For SVI, both methods had high specificity. The interrater reliability for the PSMA PET/CT evaluations was moderate to substantial.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":519909,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EJNMMI reports\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"1\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11695508/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EJNMMI reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41824-024-00234-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EJNMMI reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41824-024-00234-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:正电子发射断层扫描/计算机断层扫描(PET/CT)与前列腺特异性膜抗原配体(PSMA)建立用于前列腺癌的初级分期筛查转移。它在局部肿瘤分期方面也显示出希望,包括前列腺外展(EPE)和精囊浸润(SVI)的检测。以往的研究在方法和结果上显示出高度的异质性。我们的目的是比较[18F]PSMA-1007 PET/CT与磁共振成像(MRI)对EPE和SVI的评估,建立在先前描述的标准化评估方法的基础上。我们回顾性地纳入124例接受MRI、PSMA PET/CT和前列腺切除术的患者。PSMA PET/CT图像由2名核医学医师评估。使用标准化的方法,他们测量了胶囊接触长度(LCC),并使用5点李克特量表直观地评估了EPE和SVI。放射科医生使用基于前列腺成像报告和数据系统版本的标准评估MRI图像,并结合LCC测量和李克特量表。我们以组织病理学作为参考来评估诊断性能,以及PET评估的相互可靠性。结果:定量LCC法对PSMA PET/CT检测EPE的灵敏度和特异度分别为0.46/0.91、0.28/0.82和0.54/0.76。LCC法的ROC分析AUC为0.70。MRI的敏感性和特异性分别为0.80/0.64。PET/CT和MRI对SVI的敏感性和特异性分别为0.14/1.0和0.50/0.92。PET LCC测量的类内相关系数为0.68,PET视觉Likert量表的kappa值为0.53,EPE为0.63,SVI为0.63。结论:本研究试图规范PSMA PET/CT对EPE和SVI的定量和定性评价,并与MRI进行比较。MRI对EPE有较高的敏感性,而PSMA有较高的特异性。对于SVI,两种方法均具有较高的特异性。PSMA PET/CT评估的互译信度为中等至实质性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Semi-standardized evaluation of extraprostatic extension and seminal vesicle invasion with [18F]PSMA-1007 PET/CT: a comparison to MRI using histopathology as reference.

Background: Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) with prostate specific membrane antigen ligands (PSMA) is established for use in primary staging of prostate cancer to screen for metastases. It has also shown promise in local tumor staging, including detection of extraprostatic extension (EPE) and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI). Previous studies have shown high heterogeneity in methods and results. Our aim was to compare [18F]PSMA-1007 PET/CT to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in evaluation of EPE and SVI, building on a previously described method for standardized evaluation. We retrospectively included 124 patients who had undergone MRI, PSMA PET/CT and prostatectomy. PSMA PET/CT images were evaluated by two nuclear medicine physicians. Using a standardized method, they measured length of capsular contact (LCC) and assessed EPE and SVI visually with the use of 5-point Likert scales. A radiologist evaluated MRI images using criteria based on Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version and incorporating LCC measurement and Likert scales. We evaluated diagnostic performance with histopathology as reference, and the interrater reliability of the PET evaluations.

Results: The sensitivity and specificity for detecting EPE with the quantitative LCC method for PSMA PET/CT was 0.46/0.91, for the visual method 0.28/0.82 and for the combination of the two 0.54/0.76. AUC in ROC analysis for the LCC method was 0.70. For MRI the sensitivity and specificity were 0.80/0.64. For SVI, PET/CT and MRI had sensitivity and specificity of 0.14/1.0 and 0.50/0.92 respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the PET LCC measurement was 0.68, the kappa values for the visual Likert scales for PET were 0.53 for EPE and 0.63 for SVI.

Conclusions: In this study, we attempted to standardize quantitative and qualitative PSMA PET/CT evaluation of EPE and SVI and compare the method with MRI. MRI had a higher sensitivity for EPE while PSMA had a higher specificity. For SVI, both methods had high specificity. The interrater reliability for the PSMA PET/CT evaluations was moderate to substantial.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信