Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 May 8. doi: 10.23736/S1824-4785.19.03124-8. [Epub ahead of print]

Comparison of visual criteria for amyloid-PET reading: could their merging reduce the inter-raters variability?

Author information

1
Nuclear Medicine Department, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy - barbara.paghera@asst-spedalicivili.it.
2
Laboratory of Alzheimer's Neuroimaging and Epidemiology (LANE), Saint John of God Clinical Research Centre, Brescia, Italy.
3
Department of Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
4
Nuclear Medicine Department, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
5
Nuclear Medicine Department, IRCCS AOU San Martino, Genoa, Italy.
6
Laboratory of Neuroimaging of Aging (LANVIE), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
7
Division of Neurology V-Neuropathology, Fondazione Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Milan, Italy.
8
Neurology Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
9
Memory Clinic, University Hospital of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
10
Nuclear Medicine Department, Poliambulanza Foundation, Brescia, Italy.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Three different amyloid tracers labeled with 18-flourine have been introduced into clinical use. The leaflets of tracers indicate different visual criteria for PET reporting. In clinical practice, it isn't yet ascertained whether this criteria are equivalent in terms of diagnostic accuracy or if anyone is better than another. We aimed to evaluate the inter and intra-rater variability of visual assessment of 18F-Florbetapir PET/CT images among six independent readers with different clinical experience.

METHODS:

We analyzed 252 PET/CT scans, visually assessed by each reader three times, applying independently the three different reading criteria proposed. Each reader evaluated the regional uptake specifying for each cortical region a numeric value of grading of positivity in order to assign a final score. At the end of each reading a level of confidence was determined by assigning a score from 0 (negative) to 4 (positive). After first reading, those cases in which the evaluations by two experienced readers did not match (discordant cases) were independently reevaluated merging all the three different visual interpretation criteria.

RESULTS:

Good agreement was observed for visual interpretation among the six readers' confidence-level using independently the three visual reading criteria: ICC=0.83(0.80-0.86) for 18F-Florbetapir, ICC=0.84(0.81-0.87) for 18F-Florbetaben, and ICC=0.86(0.83-0.88) for 18F-Flutemetamol reading. A good inter-rater agreement was observed for final-score too: ICC=0.74(0.70-0.78) for 18F-Florbetapir; ICC=0.82(0.79-0.85) for 18F-Florbetaben; ICC=0.84(0.81-0.87) for 18F-Flutemetamol. Intra-rater agreement was good for final-score (from 0.76 to 0.90; p<0.001) and confidence-level (Spearman's rho from 0.89 to 1.00; p<0.001). Disagreement between the two experienced readers was observed in 22/252 cases (9%). The agreement converged over a second round of independent reading in 12/22 cases (54%), by merging all the criteria.

CONCLUSIONS:

All the criteria proposed are useful to determine the grading of positivity or negativity of amyloid deposition and their merging improves the diagnostic confidence and provides a better agreement.

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Minerva Medica
Loading ...
Support Center