RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Inter- and Intraobserver Agreement of 18F-FDG PET/CT Image Interpretation in Patients Referred for Assessment of Cardiac Sarcoidosis JF Journal of Nuclear Medicine JO J Nucl Med FD Society of Nuclear Medicine SP 1324 OP 1329 DO 10.2967/jnumed.116.187203 VO 58 IS 8 A1 Ohira, Hiroshi A1 Ardle, Brian Mc A1 deKemp, Robert A. A1 Nery, Pablo A1 Juneau, Daniel A1 Renaud, Jennifer M. A1 Klein, Ran A1 Clarkin, Owen A1 MacDonald, Karen A1 Leung, Eugene A1 Nair, Girish A1 Beanlands, Rob A1 Birnie, David YR 2017 UL http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/58/8/1324.abstract AB Recent studies have reported the usefulness of 18F-FDG PET in aiding with the diagnosis and management of patients with cardiac sarcoidosis (CS). However, image interpretation of 18F-FDG PET for CS is sometimes challenging. We sought to investigate the inter- and intraobserver agreement and explore factors that led to important discrepancies between readers. Methods: We studied consecutive patients with no significant coronary artery disease who were referred for assessment of CS. Two experienced readers masked to clinical information, imaging reports, independently reviewed 18F-FDG PET/CT images. 18F-FDG PET/CT images were interpreted according to a predefined standard operating procedure, with cardiac 18F-FDG uptake patterns categorized into 5 patterns: none, focal, focal on diffuse, diffuse, and isolated lateral wall or basal uptake. Overall image assessment was classified as either consistent with active CS or not. Results: One hundred scans were included from 71 patients. Of these, 46 underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT with a no-restriction diet (no-restriction group), and 54 underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT with a low-carbohydrate, high-fat and protein-permitted diet (low-carb group). There was agreement of the interpretation category in 74 of 100 scans. The κ-value of agreement among all 5 categories was 0.64, indicating moderate agreement. For overall clinical interpretation, there was agreement in 93 of 100 scans (κ = 0.85). When scans were divided into the preparation groups, there was a trend toward higher agreement in the low-carb group versus the no-restriction group (80% vs. 67%, P = 0.08). Regarding the overall clinical interpretation, there was also a trend toward greater agreement in the low-carb group versus the no-restriction group (96% vs. 89%, P = 0.08). Conclusion: The interobserver agreement of cardiac 18F-FDG uptake image patterns was moderate. However, agreement was better regarding overall interpretation of CS. Detailed prescan dietary preparation seemed to improve interobserver agreement.