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

IF 2.3 Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine Pub Date : 2019-12-04 eCollection Date: 2019-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s40248-019-0198-z
Franco Gambazzi, Lukas D Frey, Matthias Bruehlmeier, Wolf-Dieter Janthur, Juerg Heuberger, Andres Spirig, Richard Williams, Roland Zweifel, Bettina Boerner, Gabrielo M Tini, Sarosh Irani
{"title":"Image analysis in posttreatment non-small cell lung cancer surveillance: specialists' interpretations reviewed by the thoracic multidisciplinary tumor board.","authors":"Franco Gambazzi,&nbsp;Lukas D Frey,&nbsp;Matthias Bruehlmeier,&nbsp;Wolf-Dieter Janthur,&nbsp;Juerg Heuberger,&nbsp;Andres Spirig,&nbsp;Richard Williams,&nbsp;Roland Zweifel,&nbsp;Bettina Boerner,&nbsp;Gabrielo M Tini,&nbsp;Sarosh Irani","doi":"10.1186/s40248-019-0198-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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 <i>post hoc</i> analysis was to investigate the concordance of the specialist's and MTB's image interpretations in patients undergoing systematic posttreatment lung cancer image surveillance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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<sup>F</sup>-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 <i>post hoc</i> analysis assessed differences between the initial specialist's image interpretation and the final MTB's image interpretation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ISRCTN16281786, Date 23. February 2017.</p>","PeriodicalId":49031,"journal":{"name":"Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40248-019-0198-z","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40248-019-0198-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

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 18F-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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
治疗后非小细胞肺癌监测的图像分析:胸部多学科肿瘤委员会审查的专家解释。
背景:数据显示,在治疗前的癌症环境中,最初的专家图像解释和最终的多学科肿瘤委员会(MTB)评估可能存在很大差异。这项事后分析的目的是调查在接受系统治疗后肺癌图像监测的患者中专科医生和MTB图像解释的一致性。方法:在最初的前瞻性研究中,接受治疗意图治疗的肺癌患者被随机分配接受对比增强计算机断层扫描(CE-CT)或18f -氟脱氧葡萄糖正电子发射断层扫描-计算机断层扫描(PET-CT)。每6个月进行一次影像学检查,持续2年,所有影像学检查最终由我们的MTB评估。这个事后分析评估了最初的专家图像解释和最终的MTB图像解释之间的差异。结果:89例患者共进行266次影像学检查(129次PET-CT, 137次CE-CT)。87.2%(88.4, 86.1%)的研究结果完全一致。在12.8%(11.6,13.9%)的结果不一致中,7.5%(6.9,8.0%)的结果与患者管理的改变有关(主要分歧)。在17例研究患者中发现了20个主要分歧。回顾性分析,17例患者中有8例(47%)与MTB的观点相反,专科医生的解释更合适,而17例患者中有9例(53%)MTB的解释更准确。结论:在经验丰富的结核分枝杆菌中,在治疗后肺癌图像监测的背景下,成像专家和其他结核分枝杆菌之间关于图像解释的一致性很高。似乎在有分歧的情况下,更准确的解释率在成像专家和MTB之间得到了很好的平衡。试验注册:ISRCTN16281786,日期23。2017年2月。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine
Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine Medicine-Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine is the official journal of the Italian Respiratory Society - Società Italiana di Pneumologia (IRS/SIP). The journal publishes on all aspects of respiratory medicine and related fields, with a particular focus on interdisciplinary and translational research. The interdisciplinary nature of the journal provides a unique opportunity for researchers, clinicians and healthcare professionals across specialties to collaborate and exchange information. The journal provides a high visibility platform for the publication and dissemination of top quality original scientific articles, reviews and important position papers documenting clinical and experimental advances.
期刊最新文献
Characteristics of culture-negative subclinical pulmonary tuberculosis: a single-center observation. Effective treatment with oral Salbutamol on late onset respiratory impairment in a DOK7 Congenital Myasthenia Syndrome: a case report. Gas exchange abnormalities in Long COVID are driven by the alteration of the vascular component Usability of inhaler devices: a parameter currently misused Characteristics of inpatients with atopic asthma in a tertiary center: do age and gender have an influence?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1