RESUMO
Evaluate the quantitative, subjective (Deauville score [DS]) and reader agreement differences between standard ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) and Bayesian penalized likelihood (BPL) positron emission tomography (PET) reconstruction methods. A retrospective review of 104 F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET/computed tomography (CT) exams among 52 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. An unblinded radiologist moderator reviewed both BPL and OSEM PET/CT exams. Four blinded radiologists then reviewed the annotated cases to provide a visual DS for each annotated lesion. Significant (Pâ <â .001) differences in BPL and OSEM PET methods were identified with greater standard uptake value (SUV) maximum and SUV mean for BPL. The DS was altered in 25% of cases when BPL and OSEM were reviewed by the same radiologist. Interobserver DS agreement was higher for OSEM (>1 cm lesionâ =â 0.89 and ≤1 cm lesionâ =â 0.84) compared to BPL (>1 cm lesionâ =â 0.85 and ≤1 cm lesionâ =â 0.81). Among the 4 readers, average intraobserver visual DS agreement between OSEM and BPL was 0.67 for lesions >1cm and 0.4 for lesions ≤1 cm. F-18 Fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma reconstructed with BPL has higher SUV values, altered DSs and reader agreement when compared to OSEM. This report finds volumetric PET measurements such as metabolic tumor volume to be similar between BPL and OSEM PET reconstructions. Efforts such as adoption of European Association Research Ltd accreditation should be made to harmonize PET data with an aim at balancing the need for harmonization and sensitivity for lesion detection.
Assuntos
Linfoma Difuso de Grandes Células B , Tomografia por Emissão de Pósitrons combinada à Tomografia Computadorizada , Humanos , Teorema de Bayes , Benchmarking , Processamento de Imagem Assistida por Computador/métodos , Tomografia por Emissão de Pósitrons/métodos , Fluordesoxiglucose F18 , Algoritmos , Linfoma Difuso de Grandes Células B/diagnóstico por imagemRESUMO
PURPOSE: To evaluate technical success, efficacy and safety of portomesenteric venous (PMV) intervention for PMV stenosis or occlusion following nontransplant hepatobiliary or pancreatic (HPB) surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review identified 42 patients (mean age 60 y) with PMV stenosis (n = 33; 79%) or occlusion (n = 9; 21%) who underwent attempted PMV intervention following HPB surgery between June 1, 2011, and April 1, 2018. Main outcomes were technical success, primary patency rates, and complications. Technical success was compared by venous pathology and primary PMV patency based on anticoagulation status after the procedure using Fisher exact test. Rates of primary patency by stent group were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Technical success was 91% (n = 38/42) and significantly higher in patients with stenosis (n = 33/33; 100%) vs occlusion (n = 5/9; 56%) (P = .001). Primary presenting symptom resolved in 28 (87%) patients, including 6 (100%) patients with gastrointestinal bleeding. At mean imaging follow-up of 8.6 months ± 8.8, primary stent patency was 76%. There was no significant difference in primary stent patency based on anticoagulation status after the procedure (P = .48). There were 2 (4.8%) periprocedural complications. CONCLUSIONS: Portomesenteric venoplasty and stent placement following nontransplant HPB surgery is safe with a high rate of technical success if performed before chronic occlusion.