ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Interrater Agreement and Reliability of PERCIST and Visual Assessment When Using 18F-FDG-PET/CT for Response Monitoring of Metastatic Breast Cancer.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Increased lesion detectability in patients with locally advanced breast cancer-A pilot study using dynamic whole-body [EJNMMI research · 2024Article
- Innovations in Positron Emission Tomography and State of the Art in the Evaluation of Breast Cancer Treatment Response.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- 2-[Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Comparison of Image Quality and Quantification Parameters between Q.Clear and OSEM Reconstruction Methods on FDG-PET/CT Images in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer.Journal of imaging · 2023Article
- Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Clinical Impact of FDG-PET/CT Compared with CE-CT in Response Monitoring of Metastatic Breast Cancer.Cancers · 2021Article
- FDG-PET/CT for Response Monitoring in Metastatic Breast Cancer: The Feasibility and Benefits of Applying PERCIST.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Response evaluation at regular intervals is indicated for treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). FDG-PET/CT has the potential to monitor treatment response accurately. Our purpose was to: (a) compare the interrater agreement and reliability of the semi-quantitative PERCIST criteria to qualitative visual assessment in response evaluation of MBC and (b) investigate the intrarater agreement when comparing visual assessment of each rater to their respective PERCIST assessment. We performed a retrospective study on FDG-PET/CT in women who received treatment for MBC. Three specialists in nuclear medicine categorized response evaluation by qualitative assessment and standardized one-lesion PERCIST assessment. The scans were categorized into complete metabolic response, partial metabolic response, stable metabolic disease, and progressive metabolic disease. 37 patients with 179 scans were included. Visual assessment categorization yielded moderate agreement with an overall proportion of agreement (PoA) between raters of 0.52 (95% CI 0.44-0.66) and a Fleiss kappa estimate of 0.54 (95% CI 0.46-0.62). PERCIST response categorization yielded substantial agreement with an overall PoA of 0.65 (95% CI 0.57-0.73) and a Fleiss kappa estimate of 0.68 (95% CI 0.60-0.75). The difference in PoA between overall estimates for PERCIST and visual assessment was 0.13 (95% CI 0.06-0.21;
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.