Universität zu Köln

Kobe, C., Kuhnert, G., Haverkamp, H., Fuchs, M., Kahraman, D., Eich, H. -T., Kriz, J., Baues, C., Nast-Kolb, B., Broeckelmann, P. J., Borchmann, P., Drzezga, A., Engert, A. and Dietlein, M. (2015). Concordance in the interpretation of PET after chemotherapy in advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Nuklearmedizin, 54 (6). S. 241 - 247. STUTTGART: GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG. ISSN 2567-6407

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

The aim was to analyze the degree of agreement between the central review panel and the local PET interpretation within the HD15 trial and its impact on subsequent treatment and progression free survival. Patients, methods: The analysis set consisted of 739 patients with residues >= 2.5 cm after 6 or 8 cycles of BEACOPPesc from the HD15 trial performed by the German Hodgkin Study Group. The recommendation for or against further radiotherapy was based on the central [F-18] FDG-PET interpretation. Central PET interpretation was compared to the local PET interpretation and concordance was measured using Cohen's Kappa coefficient. Prognostic impact of the analysis of concordance between local and central PET interpretations was evaluated using progression free survival (PFS); groups were compared with the log rank test. Results: The central panel rated 548 of 739 patients (74%) as PET negative. Of these, 513 were also rated as PET negative in the local PET interpretation. PET positivity was seen by central reviewers in the remaining 191 patients (26%), in concordance with local reviewers in 155 cases. Even though substantial agreement was found (Cohen's Kappa 0.81), the interpretation of the central PET review panel led to a different therapeutic recommendation in 71/739 (10%) patients. PFS was equally high in groups in which the therapeutic regime had been changed on the basis of the central panel decision. Conclusion: High concordance is found between local and central reviewers with regard to PET interpretation in residual tissue after intense chemotherapy. The existence of the central PET review panel allows the identification of additional patients as PET negative so that radiotherapy can be safely omitted (35 of 548 patients = 4.7%).

Item Type:	Journal Article
Creators:	Creators Email ORCID ORCID Put Code Kobe, C. UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Kuhnert, G. UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Haverkamp, H. UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Fuchs, M. UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Kahraman, D. UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Eich, H. -T. UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Kriz, J. UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Baues, C. UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Nast-Kolb, B. UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Broeckelmann, P. J. UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Borchmann, P. UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Drzezga, A. UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Engert, A. UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Dietlein, M. UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED
URN:	urn:nbn:de:hbz:38-415450
DOI:	10.3413/Nukmed-0746-15-06
Journal or Publication Title:	Nuklearmedizin
Volume:	54
Number:	6
Page Range:	S. 241 - 247
Date:	2015
Publisher:	GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
Place of Publication:	STUTTGART
ISSN:	2567-6407
Language:	English
Faculty:	Unspecified
Divisions:	Unspecified
Subjects:	no entry
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Keywords Language POSITRON-EMISSION-TOMOGRAPHY; QUALITY-ASSURANCE PROGRAM; STUDY-GROUP GHSG; RESPONSE ASSESSMENT; OPEN-LABEL; INTERIM; RADIOTHERAPY; CONSENSUS; CRITERIA; ABVD Multiple languages Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging Multiple languages
URI:	http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/id/eprint/41545