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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |