Qualitative interpretation of PET scans using a Likert scale to assess neck node response to radiotherapy in head and neck cancer
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, ISSN: 1619-7089, Vol: 43, Issue: 4, Page: 609-616
2016
- 36Citations
- 56Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations36
- Citation Indexes36
- 36
- CrossRef13
- Captures56
- Readers56
- 56
Article Description
Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine whether PET scans after radiotherapy (RT), visually interpreted as equivocal regarding metabolic neck node response can be used to accurately categorize patients as responders or nonresponders using a Likert scale and/or maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax). Other aims were to determine the performance of different methods for assessing post-RT PET scans (visual inspection, a Likert scale and SUVmax) and to establish whether any method is superior in predicting regional control (RC) and overall survival (OS). Methods: In 105 patients with neck node-positive head and neck cancer, the neck node response was evaluated by FDG PET/CT 6 weeks after RT. The scans were clinically assessed by visual inspection and, for the purposes of this analysis, re-evaluated using the Deauville criteria, a five-point Likert scale previously used in lymphoma studies. In addition, SUVmax was determined. Results: All assessment methods were able to significantly predict RC but not OS. The methods were also able to significantly predict remission of tumour after completion of RT. Of the 105 PET scans, 19 were judged as equivocal on visual inspection. The Likert scale was preferable to SUVmax for grouping patients as responders or nonresponders. Conclusion: All methods (visual inspection, SUVmax and the Likert scale) identified responders and nonresponders and predicted RC. A Likert scale is a promising tool to reduce to a minimum the problem of PET scans judged as equivocal. Consensus regarding qualitative assessment would facilitate PET reporting in clinical practice.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84959161988&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3194-3; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26428529; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00259-015-3194-3; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3194-3; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00259-015-3194-3
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know