Cargando…

Image analysis in posttreatment non-small cell lung cancer surveillance: specialists’ interpretations reviewed by the thoracic multidisciplinary tumor board

BACKGROUND: Data show that the initial specialist’s image interpretation and final multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) assessment can vary substantially in the pretherapeutic cancer setting. The aim of this post hoc analysis was to investigate the concordance of the specialist’s and MTB’s image inte...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gambazzi, Franco, Frey, Lukas D., Bruehlmeier, Matthias, Janthur, Wolf-Dieter, Heuberger, Juerg, Spirig, Andres, Williams, Richard, Zweifel, Roland, Boerner, Bettina, Tini, Gabrielo M., Irani, Sarosh
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6891985/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31827794
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40248-019-0198-z
_version_ 1783475939167961088
author Gambazzi, Franco
Frey, Lukas D.
Bruehlmeier, Matthias
Janthur, Wolf-Dieter
Heuberger, Juerg
Spirig, Andres
Williams, Richard
Zweifel, Roland
Boerner, Bettina
Tini, Gabrielo M.
Irani, Sarosh
author_facet Gambazzi, Franco
Frey, Lukas D.
Bruehlmeier, Matthias
Janthur, Wolf-Dieter
Heuberger, Juerg
Spirig, Andres
Williams, Richard
Zweifel, Roland
Boerner, Bettina
Tini, Gabrielo M.
Irani, Sarosh
author_sort Gambazzi, Franco
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Data show that the initial specialist’s image interpretation and final multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) assessment can vary substantially in the pretherapeutic cancer setting. The aim of this post hoc analysis was to investigate the concordance of the specialist’s and MTB’s image interpretations in patients undergoing systematic posttreatment lung cancer image surveillance. METHODS: In the initial prospective study, lung cancer patients who had received curative-intent treatment were randomly assigned to undergo either contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) or integrated 18(F)-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT). Imaging was performed every 6 months for 2 years, and all imaging studies were finally assessed by our MTB. This post hoc analysis assessed differences between the initial specialist’s image interpretation and the final MTB’s image interpretation. RESULTS: In 89 patients, 266 imaging studies (129 PET-CT, 137 CE-CT) were analyzed. In 87.2% (88.4, 86.1%) of the studies, complete concordance was found. Out of the 12.8% (11.6, 13.9%) with discordant results, 7.5% (6.9, 8.0%) had implications for alterations in patient management (major disagreements). Twenty major disagreements were detected in 17 study patients. Retrospectively, in eight out of these 17 (47%) patients, in contrast to the MTB’s view, the specialist’s interpretation was more appropriate, whereas in nine out of 17 patients (53%), the MTB’s interpretation was more accurate. CONCLUSIONS: In an experienced MTB, the agreement between imaging specialists and the rest of the MTB with regard to the interpretation of images is high in a setting of posttreatment lung cancer image surveillance. It seems that in cases of disagreements, the rates of more accurate interpretation are well balanced between imaging specialists and the MTB. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16281786, Date 23. February 2017.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6891985
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68919852019-12-11 Image analysis in posttreatment non-small cell lung cancer surveillance: specialists’ interpretations reviewed by the thoracic multidisciplinary tumor board Gambazzi, Franco Frey, Lukas D. Bruehlmeier, Matthias Janthur, Wolf-Dieter Heuberger, Juerg Spirig, Andres Williams, Richard Zweifel, Roland Boerner, Bettina Tini, Gabrielo M. Irani, Sarosh Multidiscip Respir Med Original Research Article BACKGROUND: Data show that the initial specialist’s image interpretation and final multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) assessment can vary substantially in the pretherapeutic cancer setting. The aim of this post hoc analysis was to investigate the concordance of the specialist’s and MTB’s image interpretations in patients undergoing systematic posttreatment lung cancer image surveillance. METHODS: In the initial prospective study, lung cancer patients who had received curative-intent treatment were randomly assigned to undergo either contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) or integrated 18(F)-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT). Imaging was performed every 6 months for 2 years, and all imaging studies were finally assessed by our MTB. This post hoc analysis assessed differences between the initial specialist’s image interpretation and the final MTB’s image interpretation. RESULTS: In 89 patients, 266 imaging studies (129 PET-CT, 137 CE-CT) were analyzed. In 87.2% (88.4, 86.1%) of the studies, complete concordance was found. Out of the 12.8% (11.6, 13.9%) with discordant results, 7.5% (6.9, 8.0%) had implications for alterations in patient management (major disagreements). Twenty major disagreements were detected in 17 study patients. Retrospectively, in eight out of these 17 (47%) patients, in contrast to the MTB’s view, the specialist’s interpretation was more appropriate, whereas in nine out of 17 patients (53%), the MTB’s interpretation was more accurate. CONCLUSIONS: In an experienced MTB, the agreement between imaging specialists and the rest of the MTB with regard to the interpretation of images is high in a setting of posttreatment lung cancer image surveillance. It seems that in cases of disagreements, the rates of more accurate interpretation are well balanced between imaging specialists and the MTB. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16281786, Date 23. February 2017. BioMed Central 2019-12-04 /pmc/articles/PMC6891985/ /pubmed/31827794 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40248-019-0198-z Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Gambazzi, Franco
Frey, Lukas D.
Bruehlmeier, Matthias
Janthur, Wolf-Dieter
Heuberger, Juerg
Spirig, Andres
Williams, Richard
Zweifel, Roland
Boerner, Bettina
Tini, Gabrielo M.
Irani, Sarosh
Image analysis in posttreatment non-small cell lung cancer surveillance: specialists’ interpretations reviewed by the thoracic multidisciplinary tumor board
title Image analysis in posttreatment non-small cell lung cancer surveillance: specialists’ interpretations reviewed by the thoracic multidisciplinary tumor board
title_full Image analysis in posttreatment non-small cell lung cancer surveillance: specialists’ interpretations reviewed by the thoracic multidisciplinary tumor board
title_fullStr Image analysis in posttreatment non-small cell lung cancer surveillance: specialists’ interpretations reviewed by the thoracic multidisciplinary tumor board
title_full_unstemmed Image analysis in posttreatment non-small cell lung cancer surveillance: specialists’ interpretations reviewed by the thoracic multidisciplinary tumor board
title_short Image analysis in posttreatment non-small cell lung cancer surveillance: specialists’ interpretations reviewed by the thoracic multidisciplinary tumor board
title_sort image analysis in posttreatment non-small cell lung cancer surveillance: specialists’ interpretations reviewed by the thoracic multidisciplinary tumor board
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6891985/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31827794
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40248-019-0198-z
work_keys_str_mv AT gambazzifranco imageanalysisinposttreatmentnonsmallcelllungcancersurveillancespecialistsinterpretationsreviewedbythethoracicmultidisciplinarytumorboard
AT freylukasd imageanalysisinposttreatmentnonsmallcelllungcancersurveillancespecialistsinterpretationsreviewedbythethoracicmultidisciplinarytumorboard
AT bruehlmeiermatthias imageanalysisinposttreatmentnonsmallcelllungcancersurveillancespecialistsinterpretationsreviewedbythethoracicmultidisciplinarytumorboard
AT janthurwolfdieter imageanalysisinposttreatmentnonsmallcelllungcancersurveillancespecialistsinterpretationsreviewedbythethoracicmultidisciplinarytumorboard
AT heubergerjuerg imageanalysisinposttreatmentnonsmallcelllungcancersurveillancespecialistsinterpretationsreviewedbythethoracicmultidisciplinarytumorboard
AT spirigandres imageanalysisinposttreatmentnonsmallcelllungcancersurveillancespecialistsinterpretationsreviewedbythethoracicmultidisciplinarytumorboard
AT williamsrichard imageanalysisinposttreatmentnonsmallcelllungcancersurveillancespecialistsinterpretationsreviewedbythethoracicmultidisciplinarytumorboard
AT zweifelroland imageanalysisinposttreatmentnonsmallcelllungcancersurveillancespecialistsinterpretationsreviewedbythethoracicmultidisciplinarytumorboard
AT boernerbettina imageanalysisinposttreatmentnonsmallcelllungcancersurveillancespecialistsinterpretationsreviewedbythethoracicmultidisciplinarytumorboard
AT tinigabrielom imageanalysisinposttreatmentnonsmallcelllungcancersurveillancespecialistsinterpretationsreviewedbythethoracicmultidisciplinarytumorboard
AT iranisarosh imageanalysisinposttreatmentnonsmallcelllungcancersurveillancespecialistsinterpretationsreviewedbythethoracicmultidisciplinarytumorboard