Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Research ArticleCLINICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Observer Variation in Interpreting 18F-FDG PET/CT Findings for Lymphoma Staging

Michael S. Hofman, Nigel C. Smeeton, Sheila C. Rankin, Tom Nunan and Michael J. O'Doherty
Journal of Nuclear Medicine October 2009, 50 (10) 1594-1597; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.109.064121
Michael S. Hofman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nigel C. Smeeton
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sheila C. Rankin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tom Nunan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael J. O'Doherty
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • FIGURE 1. 
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1. 

    Axial (A) and coronal (B) PET and PET/CT images demonstrating focal increased metabolic activity in subcentimeter node (arrow) that was variably reported as supraclavicular, infraclavicular, or axillary. This did not result in a change in overall stage due to the presence of widespread disease, and this variability would therefore not change management.

  • FIGURE 2. 
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 2. 

    Axial PET and PET/CT images demonstrating large-bowel lymphomatous involvement (arrow) in addition to mesenteric nodal involvement. Some reviewers reported only mesenteric nodal involvement, but involvement of bowel wall was clearly evident on review.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    Lymphoma Subtypes

    Subtypen
    Diffuse large B cell40
    Hodgkin32
    Follicular9
    T cell9
    High-grade non-Hodgkin, unspecified3
    Burkitt1
    Anaplastic large cell2
    Mantle cell2
    Uncertain1
    Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder1
    • View popup
    TABLE 2

    Percentage of Patients with Lymphomatous Involvement at Specific Nodal and Extranodal Sites

    SitePercentage
    Nodal
     Cervical55.8 (L); 47.4 (R)
     Axillary28.8 (L); 28.0 (R)
     Infraclavicular6.4 (L); 4.2 (R)
     Hilar23.0
     Mediastinal38.8
     Periaortic37.8
     Pelvic31.4 (L); 31.6 (R)
     Inguinal33.6 (L); 28.6 (R)
    Extranodal
     Spleen17.8
     Bone marrow or bone20.0
     Lung5.4
     Liver10.0
     Bowel or gastric5.4
    Other nodal sites*8.0
    • ↵* Muscle, subcutaneous tissue, breast, and uterus.

    • View popup
    TABLE 3

    Intra- and Interobserver Variability

    IntraobserverInterobserver
    Parameter121 vs. 22 vs. 31 vs. 3
    Ann Arbor0.91 (0.82–0.97)0.88 (0.80–0.95)0.81 (0.69–0.90)0.79 (0.68–0.86)0.87 (0.77–0.94)
    Extranodal0.82 (0.70–0.93)0.86 (0.76–0.96)0.74 (0.61–0.87)0.82 (0.71–0.93)0.76 (0.63–0.89)
    No. of nodal groups0.93 (0.90–0.96)0.91 (0.87–0.94)0.83 (0.76–0.89)0.92 (0.89–0.95)0.88 (0.83–0.92)
    Nodal sites
     Cervical*0.84 (0.72–0.92)0.86 (0.78–0.93)0.81 (0.71–0.90)0.77 (0.66–0.86)0.79 (0.68–0.88)
     Axillary0.80 (0.68–0.89)0.74 (0.61–0.85)0.69 (0.56–0.81)0.69 (0.53–0.83)0.73 (0.60–0.84)
     Infraclavicular0.55 (−0.01–0.89)0.39 (0.10–0.73)0.23 (−0.02–0.55)0.37 (−0.01–0.68)0.14 (−0.04–0.50)
     Hilar0.82 (0.70–0.95)0.65 (0.48–0.83)0.56 (0.37–0.75)0.58 (0.36–0.79)0.63 (0.45–0.81)
     Pelvic0.82 (0.70–0.91)0.68 (0.53–0.81)0.65 (0.53–0.76)0.71 (0.60–0.82)0.68 (0.55–0.79)
     Inguinal or femoral0.82 (0.72–0.91)0.69 (0.55–0.82)0.71 (0.59–0.82)0.76 (0.64–0.87)0.69 (0.55–0.82)
     Mediastinal0.75 (0.61–0.88)0.75 (0.61–0.88)0.75 (0.61–0.88)0.77 (0.64–0.90)0.73 (0.59–0.87)
     Periaortic0.77 (0.65–0.90)0.76 (0.63–0.89)0.75 (0.62–0.88)0.81 (0.69–0.93)0.78 (0.65–0.90)
     Mesentery0.65 (0.47–0.83)0.61 (0.41–0.81)0.63 (0.44–0.81)0.61 (0.41–0.81)0.67 (0.49–0.85)
    Extranodal sites
     Spleen0.84 (0.69–0.99)0.81 (0.67–0.96)0.75 (0.57–0.92)0.81 (0.67–0.96)0.69 (0.51–0.88)
     Bone marrow0.94 (0.85–0.99)0.81 (0.67–0.96)0.76 (0.60–0.92)0.76 (0.60–0.92)0.93 (0.84–0.99)
     Lung0.82 (0.58–0.99)0.90 (0.72–0.99)0.58 (0.21–0.95)0.58 (0.21–0.95)0.65 (0.32–0.97)
     Liver0.95 (0.84–0.99)0.88 (0.71–0.99)0.84 (0.66–0.99)0.78 (0.57–0.99)0.59 (0.32–0.87)
     Bowel0.71 (0.40–0.99)0.56 (0.11–0.99)0.64 (0.35–0.93)0.59 (0.28–0.91)0.37 (−0.03–0.76)
    • ↵* Cervical includes supraclavicular and all head and neck nodal stations.

    • Data are intraclass correlation coefficient for number of nodal groups and κw for all other variables, with 95% confidence intervals in parentheses.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 50 (10)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 50, Issue 10
October 2009
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Observer Variation in Interpreting 18F-FDG PET/CT Findings for Lymphoma Staging
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Observer Variation in Interpreting 18F-FDG PET/CT Findings for Lymphoma Staging
Michael S. Hofman, Nigel C. Smeeton, Sheila C. Rankin, Tom Nunan, Michael J. O'Doherty
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Oct 2009, 50 (10) 1594-1597; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.109.064121

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Observer Variation in Interpreting 18F-FDG PET/CT Findings for Lymphoma Staging
Michael S. Hofman, Nigel C. Smeeton, Sheila C. Rankin, Tom Nunan, Michael J. O'Doherty
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Oct 2009, 50 (10) 1594-1597; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.109.064121
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Interobserver Agreement of Interim and End-of-Treatment 18F-FDG PET/CT in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Impact on Clinical Practice and Trials
  • In Newly Diagnosed Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma, Determination of Bone Marrow Involvement with 18F-FDG PET/CT Provides Better Diagnostic Performance and Prognostic Stratification Than Does Biopsy
  • PET-CT staging of DLBCL accurately identifies and provides new insight into the clinical significance of bone marrow involvement
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Feasibility of Ultra-Low-Activity 18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging Using a Long–Axial-Field-of-View PET/CT System
  • Cardiac Presynaptic Sympathetic Nervous Function Evaluated by Cardiac PET in Patients with Chronotropic Incompetence Without Heart Failure
  • Validation and Evaluation of a Vendor-Provided Head Motion Correction Algorithm on the uMI Panorama PET/CT System
Show more Clinical Investigations

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire