ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Inter-reader agreement of quantitative FDG PET/CT biomarkers in lymphoma: a multicentre evaluation of MTV, TLG and Dmax.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes of gastrointestinal bleeding events after first-line chemotherapy in gastrointestinal-diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a propensity-score matched analysis.Annals of hematology · 2026Article
- Pseudotime-Based derivation of a PET-Based metabolic progression index for prognostic stratification in Extensive-Stage SCLC.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2026Article
- Interpretable deep learning radiomics fromBMC medical imaging · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Deauville score is a key prognostic factor in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) during interim and end-of-treatment PET/CT evaluations. However, additional measurements, particularly at baseline, such as metabolic tumour volume (MTV), total lesion glycolysis (TLG), and the maximum distance between hypermetabolic lymphoma lesions (Dmax) may offer enhanced prognostic value. This study evaluates the inter-reader agreement of these metrics to assess their reliability across different physicians.
methodsThis study included 117 patients with untreated HL or DLBCL who had baseline [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT scans. Nine nuclear medicine physicians independently segmented lymphoma lesions using the online platform Recomia ( www.recomia.org ), without specific instructions beyond identifying lymphoma-related lesions. MTV, TLG, and Dmax were calculated from these segmentations. MTV was defined as the summed volume in cm3, TLG as MTV multiplied by SUVmean and Dmax as the distance between the centroids of the two farthest lesions, measured in the 3D reconstruction. Each patient was segmented by two physicians. Inter-reader agreement was assessed using Spearman correlation coefficients for continuous values and Cohen’s kappa coefficient (κ) for dichotomized values (above/below median).
resultsThe mean age of the 117 patients was 50 years (standard deviation 19), 39% female. Median (± interquartile range) values were 321 (± 597) cm3 for MTV, 2200 (± 4399) cm3 for TLG, and 35 (± 50) cm for Dmax. Spearman correlations between readers were 0.97 for MTV, 0.98 for TLG and 0.72 for Dmax (all p < 0.01). Agreement on dichotomized values was 95.7% for MTV (κ = 0.91), 97.4% for TLG (κ = 0.95), 83.8% for Dmax (κ = 0.68).
conclusionsMTV and TLG demonstrated good inter-reader reliability, even without standardized segmentation protocols. In contrast, Dmax showed moderate variability. These findings support the robustness of MTV and TLG as quantitative biomarkers. For Dmax to be clinically reliable, clearer segmentation guidelines are essential. Especially, inconsistent inclusion of small lesions that may not contribute significantly to MTV, might affect measurement of disease dissemination.
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.