Inter-Observer Variability in the Interpretation of <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA PET-CT Scan according to PROMISE Criteria
- 1 Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Applied Sciences (PIEAS), Islamabad, Pakistan
- 2 Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET Imaging, Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Oncology Lahore (INMOL), Lahore, Pakistan
- 3 Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET Imaging, Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Oncology Lahore (INMOL), Lahore, Pakistan
- 4 Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET Imaging, Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Oncology Lahore (INMOL), Lahore, Pakistan
- 5 Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET Imaging, Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Oncology Lahore (INMOL), Lahore, Pakistan
- 6 Department of Clinical Oncology, Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Oncology Lahore (INMOL), Lahore, Pakistan
Abstract
Aims & Objectives: Aim of the study was to evaluate inter-observer variability in interpretation of Gallium-68 labeled Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen sub-type 11 (68Ga-PSMA-11) Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography PET_CT scan according to Prostate Cancer Molecular Imaging Standardized Evaluation (PROMISE) criteria. Method and Materials: Forty-four consecutive patients of prostate cancer were prospectively studied between the duration of January 2021 to June 2021 at Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Oncology (INMOL), Lahore. All PET-CT scans were assessed by a researcher and 3 nuclear physicians and divided into two groups, interpreted in two phases. In the first phase, each group independently evaluated the scans while in the second phase, a consensus meeting was held and all the cases with discordance were discussed. Cohen’s Kappa test was used to measure interobserver variability with the cut-off of K’s alpha < 0.61 that was chosen to indicate substantial disagreement. Results: The study showed 41 out of 44 scans with positive PSMA findings while 03 scans were negative for any PSMA avid disease. In the first phase of image analysis, the level of agreement was slight in T stage (Kappa = 0.068, p = 0.65), moderate in the miN stage (Kappa = 0.46, p = 0.02) and substantial in miM stage (Kappa = 0.77, p ≤ 0.001) was seen. For PSMA score, overall agreement was substantial agreement (Kappa = 0.64, p < 0.01). In the second phase, miT stage and miN stage showed total agreement (Kappa = 1, p < 0.001), and miM stage showed strong agreement (Kappa = 0.90, p < 0.001) while PSMA score in all three stages showed total agreement (Kappa = 0.9, p < 0.01). Conclusion: Remarkable inter-observer agreement was seen in PROMISE criteria.
- Fendler, W.P., Eiber, M., Beheshti, M., et al. (2017) 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT: Joint EANM and SNMMI Procedure Guideline for Prostate Cancer Imaging: Version 1.0. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 44, 1014-1024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3670-z
- Kulkarni, M., Hughes, S., Mallia, A., et al. (2020) The Management Impact of 68Galliumtris(Hydroxypyridinone) Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen (68Ga-THP-PSMA) PET-CT Imaging for High-Risk and Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 47, 674-686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04643-7
- Williams, S. (2020) Molecular Imaging of Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer. The Cancer Journal, 26, 43-47. https://doi.org/10.1097/PPO.0000000000000427
- Chen, F.K., de Castro Abreu, A.L. and Palmer, S.L. (2016) Utility of Ultrasound in the Diagnosis, Treatment, and Follow-up of Prostate Cancer: State of the Art. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 57, 13S-18S. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.177196
- Harvey, H. and deSouza, N.M. (2016) The Role of Imaging in the Diagnosis of Primary Prostate Cancer. Journal of Clinical Urology, 9, 11-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2051415816656120
- European Association of Urology (EAU) (2021) EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer.
- Turkbey, B., Albert, P.S., Kurdziel, K., Albert, K.K. and Choyke, P.L. (2009) Imaging Localized Prostate Cancer: Current Approaches and New Developments. American Journal of Roentgenology, 192, 1471-1480. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.2527
- O’Malley, J.P., Ziessman, H.A. and Thrall, J.H. (2020) Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging: The Requisites. 5th Edition, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
- Perera, M., Papa, N., Christidis, D., et al. (2016) Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictors of Positive 68Ga-Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography in Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. European Urology, 70, 926-937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.021
- Jadvar, H. (2016) Is There Use for FDG-PET in Prostate Cancer? Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, 46, 502-506. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2016.07.004
- Demirkol, M.O., Acar, Ö., Uçar, B., Ramazanotlu, S.R., Satlican, Y. and Esen, T. (2015) Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen-Based Imaging in Prostate Cancer: Impact on the Clinical Decision-Making Process. The Prostate, 75, 748-757. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.22956