Observer agreement of treatment responses on planar bone scintigraphy in prostate cancer patients: Importance of the lesion assessment method

Autores
Fonager, Randi F.; Zacho, Helle D.; Albertsen, Signe; Fledelius, Joan; Ejlersen, June A.; Christensen, Mette H.; Aleksyniene, Ramune; Biurrun Manresa, José Alberto; Petersen, Lars J.
Año de publicación
2017
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Purpose The aim of this study was to assess observer agreement on the evaluation of treatment responses of bone metastases by bone scintigraphy (BS) using different scoring methods in prostate cancer patients. Patients and methods Sixty-three paired BS from 55 patients were included. BS was performed before and after more than 12 weeks of anticancer treatment. A panel of experienced nuclear medicine physicians from several institutions evaluated treatment response using three different methods: (a) standard clinical assessment, (b) MD Anderson criteria, and (c) Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 (PCWG-2) criteria. All methods were based on the evaluation of paired before-after bone scans. Results Readers were able to classify the presence of bone metastases at baseline with a high level of agreement [Cohen's κ=0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-1.00]. Observer agreement on bone response by PCWG-2 criteria showed considerable agreement (Cohen's κ=0.84, 95% CI: 0.69-0.99). Evaluation using standard clinical assessment and MD Anderson criteria showed moderate agreement (0.52, 95% CI: 0.36-0.69 and 0.64, 95% CI: 0.48-0.79, respectively). There was considerable variation among readers for regional lesion count on individual scans, with limits of agreement of -10 to 10 lesions or more for the majority of anatomical regions, including the thorax, spine, and pelvis. Conclusion Observer agreement on treatment response by BS varied notably across methods. Optimal agreement was achieved by the PCWG-2 criteria. Variation in the classification of treatment response of bone metastases may have a significant impact on clinical decision-making, emphasizing the need for a uniform approach, including during clinical practice. Response assessment by lesion counting on repeated BS without access to previous scans cannot be recommended.
Fil: Fonager, Randi F.. Aalborg University; Dinamarca
Fil: Zacho, Helle D.. Aalborg University; Dinamarca
Fil: Albertsen, Signe. Aalborg University; Dinamarca
Fil: Fledelius, Joan. Herning Hospital; Dinamarca
Fil: Ejlersen, June A.. Herning Hospital; Dinamarca
Fil: Christensen, Mette H.. Viborg Regional Hospital; Dinamarca
Fil: Aleksyniene, Ramune. Aalborg University; Dinamarca
Fil: Biurrun Manresa, José Alberto. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Aalborg University; Dinamarca
Fil: Petersen, Lars J.. Viborg Regional Hospital; Dinamarca
Materia
Bone Metastases
Bone Scan
Observer Agreement
Prostate Cancer
Response Assessment
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/72932
Acceder
id CONICETDig_245193b341d3b73fe757afc7f305eaa3
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/72932
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Observer agreement of treatment responses on planar bone scintigraphy in prostate cancer patients: Importance of the lesion assessment methodFonager, Randi F.Zacho, Helle D.Albertsen, SigneFledelius, JoanEjlersen, June A.Christensen, Mette H.Aleksyniene, RamuneBiurrun Manresa, José AlbertoPetersen, Lars J.Bone MetastasesBone ScanObserver AgreementProstate CancerResponse Assessmenthttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.2https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3Purpose The aim of this study was to assess observer agreement on the evaluation of treatment responses of bone metastases by bone scintigraphy (BS) using different scoring methods in prostate cancer patients. Patients and methods Sixty-three paired BS from 55 patients were included. BS was performed before and after more than 12 weeks of anticancer treatment. A panel of experienced nuclear medicine physicians from several institutions evaluated treatment response using three different methods: (a) standard clinical assessment, (b) MD Anderson criteria, and (c) Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 (PCWG-2) criteria. All methods were based on the evaluation of paired before-after bone scans. Results Readers were able to classify the presence of bone metastases at baseline with a high level of agreement [Cohen's κ=0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-1.00]. Observer agreement on bone response by PCWG-2 criteria showed considerable agreement (Cohen's κ=0.84, 95% CI: 0.69-0.99). Evaluation using standard clinical assessment and MD Anderson criteria showed moderate agreement (0.52, 95% CI: 0.36-0.69 and 0.64, 95% CI: 0.48-0.79, respectively). There was considerable variation among readers for regional lesion count on individual scans, with limits of agreement of -10 to 10 lesions or more for the majority of anatomical regions, including the thorax, spine, and pelvis. Conclusion Observer agreement on treatment response by BS varied notably across methods. Optimal agreement was achieved by the PCWG-2 criteria. Variation in the classification of treatment response of bone metastases may have a significant impact on clinical decision-making, emphasizing the need for a uniform approach, including during clinical practice. Response assessment by lesion counting on repeated BS without access to previous scans cannot be recommended.Fil: Fonager, Randi F.. Aalborg University; DinamarcaFil: Zacho, Helle D.. Aalborg University; DinamarcaFil: Albertsen, Signe. Aalborg University; DinamarcaFil: Fledelius, Joan. Herning Hospital; DinamarcaFil: Ejlersen, June A.. Herning Hospital; DinamarcaFil: Christensen, Mette H.. Viborg Regional Hospital; DinamarcaFil: Aleksyniene, Ramune. Aalborg University; DinamarcaFil: Biurrun Manresa, José Alberto. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Aalborg University; DinamarcaFil: Petersen, Lars J.. Viborg Regional Hospital; DinamarcaLippincott Williams2017-03info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/72932Fonager, Randi F.; Zacho, Helle D.; Albertsen, Signe; Fledelius, Joan; Ejlersen, June A.; et al.; Observer agreement of treatment responses on planar bone scintigraphy in prostate cancer patients: Importance of the lesion assessment method; Lippincott Williams; Nuclear Medicine Communications; 38; 3; 3-2017; 215-2210143-3636CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1097/MNM.0000000000000643info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00006231-201703000-00004info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-10-22T11:09:20Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/72932instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-10-22 11:09:20.371CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Observer agreement of treatment responses on planar bone scintigraphy in prostate cancer patients: Importance of the lesion assessment method
title Observer agreement of treatment responses on planar bone scintigraphy in prostate cancer patients: Importance of the lesion assessment method
spellingShingle Observer agreement of treatment responses on planar bone scintigraphy in prostate cancer patients: Importance of the lesion assessment method
Fonager, Randi F.
Bone Metastases
Bone Scan
Observer Agreement
Prostate Cancer
Response Assessment
title_short Observer agreement of treatment responses on planar bone scintigraphy in prostate cancer patients: Importance of the lesion assessment method
title_full Observer agreement of treatment responses on planar bone scintigraphy in prostate cancer patients: Importance of the lesion assessment method
title_fullStr Observer agreement of treatment responses on planar bone scintigraphy in prostate cancer patients: Importance of the lesion assessment method
title_full_unstemmed Observer agreement of treatment responses on planar bone scintigraphy in prostate cancer patients: Importance of the lesion assessment method
title_sort Observer agreement of treatment responses on planar bone scintigraphy in prostate cancer patients: Importance of the lesion assessment method
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Fonager, Randi F.
Zacho, Helle D.
Albertsen, Signe
Fledelius, Joan
Ejlersen, June A.
Christensen, Mette H.
Aleksyniene, Ramune
Biurrun Manresa, José Alberto
Petersen, Lars J.
author Fonager, Randi F.
author_facet Fonager, Randi F.
Zacho, Helle D.
Albertsen, Signe
Fledelius, Joan
Ejlersen, June A.
Christensen, Mette H.
Aleksyniene, Ramune
Biurrun Manresa, José Alberto
Petersen, Lars J.
author_role author
author2 Zacho, Helle D.
Albertsen, Signe
Fledelius, Joan
Ejlersen, June A.
Christensen, Mette H.
Aleksyniene, Ramune
Biurrun Manresa, José Alberto
Petersen, Lars J.
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Bone Metastases
Bone Scan
Observer Agreement
Prostate Cancer
Response Assessment
topic Bone Metastases
Bone Scan
Observer Agreement
Prostate Cancer
Response Assessment
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.2
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Purpose The aim of this study was to assess observer agreement on the evaluation of treatment responses of bone metastases by bone scintigraphy (BS) using different scoring methods in prostate cancer patients. Patients and methods Sixty-three paired BS from 55 patients were included. BS was performed before and after more than 12 weeks of anticancer treatment. A panel of experienced nuclear medicine physicians from several institutions evaluated treatment response using three different methods: (a) standard clinical assessment, (b) MD Anderson criteria, and (c) Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 (PCWG-2) criteria. All methods were based on the evaluation of paired before-after bone scans. Results Readers were able to classify the presence of bone metastases at baseline with a high level of agreement [Cohen's κ=0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-1.00]. Observer agreement on bone response by PCWG-2 criteria showed considerable agreement (Cohen's κ=0.84, 95% CI: 0.69-0.99). Evaluation using standard clinical assessment and MD Anderson criteria showed moderate agreement (0.52, 95% CI: 0.36-0.69 and 0.64, 95% CI: 0.48-0.79, respectively). There was considerable variation among readers for regional lesion count on individual scans, with limits of agreement of -10 to 10 lesions or more for the majority of anatomical regions, including the thorax, spine, and pelvis. Conclusion Observer agreement on treatment response by BS varied notably across methods. Optimal agreement was achieved by the PCWG-2 criteria. Variation in the classification of treatment response of bone metastases may have a significant impact on clinical decision-making, emphasizing the need for a uniform approach, including during clinical practice. Response assessment by lesion counting on repeated BS without access to previous scans cannot be recommended.
Fil: Fonager, Randi F.. Aalborg University; Dinamarca
Fil: Zacho, Helle D.. Aalborg University; Dinamarca
Fil: Albertsen, Signe. Aalborg University; Dinamarca
Fil: Fledelius, Joan. Herning Hospital; Dinamarca
Fil: Ejlersen, June A.. Herning Hospital; Dinamarca
Fil: Christensen, Mette H.. Viborg Regional Hospital; Dinamarca
Fil: Aleksyniene, Ramune. Aalborg University; Dinamarca
Fil: Biurrun Manresa, José Alberto. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Aalborg University; Dinamarca
Fil: Petersen, Lars J.. Viborg Regional Hospital; Dinamarca
description Purpose The aim of this study was to assess observer agreement on the evaluation of treatment responses of bone metastases by bone scintigraphy (BS) using different scoring methods in prostate cancer patients. Patients and methods Sixty-three paired BS from 55 patients were included. BS was performed before and after more than 12 weeks of anticancer treatment. A panel of experienced nuclear medicine physicians from several institutions evaluated treatment response using three different methods: (a) standard clinical assessment, (b) MD Anderson criteria, and (c) Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 (PCWG-2) criteria. All methods were based on the evaluation of paired before-after bone scans. Results Readers were able to classify the presence of bone metastases at baseline with a high level of agreement [Cohen's κ=0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-1.00]. Observer agreement on bone response by PCWG-2 criteria showed considerable agreement (Cohen's κ=0.84, 95% CI: 0.69-0.99). Evaluation using standard clinical assessment and MD Anderson criteria showed moderate agreement (0.52, 95% CI: 0.36-0.69 and 0.64, 95% CI: 0.48-0.79, respectively). There was considerable variation among readers for regional lesion count on individual scans, with limits of agreement of -10 to 10 lesions or more for the majority of anatomical regions, including the thorax, spine, and pelvis. Conclusion Observer agreement on treatment response by BS varied notably across methods. Optimal agreement was achieved by the PCWG-2 criteria. Variation in the classification of treatment response of bone metastases may have a significant impact on clinical decision-making, emphasizing the need for a uniform approach, including during clinical practice. Response assessment by lesion counting on repeated BS without access to previous scans cannot be recommended.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017-03
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/72932
Fonager, Randi F.; Zacho, Helle D.; Albertsen, Signe; Fledelius, Joan; Ejlersen, June A.; et al.; Observer agreement of treatment responses on planar bone scintigraphy in prostate cancer patients: Importance of the lesion assessment method; Lippincott Williams; Nuclear Medicine Communications; 38; 3; 3-2017; 215-221
0143-3636
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/72932
identifier_str_mv Fonager, Randi F.; Zacho, Helle D.; Albertsen, Signe; Fledelius, Joan; Ejlersen, June A.; et al.; Observer agreement of treatment responses on planar bone scintigraphy in prostate cancer patients: Importance of the lesion assessment method; Lippincott Williams; Nuclear Medicine Communications; 38; 3; 3-2017; 215-221
0143-3636
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1097/MNM.0000000000000643
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00006231-201703000-00004
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Lippincott Williams
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Lippincott Williams
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1846781437002383360
score 12.982451

Publicaciones similares