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.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Scientific data on the image modality to be used in postcurative treatment surveillance of non-small cell lung cancer patients are scarce. This prospective randomized pilot trial compared the performance of integrated 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT). METHODS: After termination of curative-intent treatment, patients were randomly assigned to the PET-CT or the CE-CT group. Imaging was performed every 6 months for 2 years. If suspicious radiologic findings were detected or patients became symptomatic, a diagnostic workup was initiated. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value for detecting cancer recurrence were calculated for both imaging procedures. RESULTS: The study enrolled 96 patients. In 14 of 50 patients (28%) in the PET-CT group and in 14 of 46 patients (30%) in the CE-CT group, a suspicious radiologic finding was confirmed as cancer recurrence after diagnostic workup. False-positive findings were detected in 11 patients (22%) of the PET-CT group and in 8 patients (17%) of the CE-CT group. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value for detecting cancer recurrence (95% confidence interval) were 0.88 (0.62 to 0.98), 0.62 (0.42 to 0.79), and 0.56 (0.35 to 0.76) for PET-CT and 0.93 (0.68 to 1.00), 0.72 (0.53 to 0.87), and 0.64 (0.41to 0.83) for CE-CT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study suggest that PET-CT is not superior to CE-CT in detecting cancer recurrence during 2 years after curative-intent treatment of non-small cell lung cancer.
