Craig J C, Irwig L, Ford M, Willis N S, Howman-Giles R B, Uren R F, Rossleigh M A, Grunewald S
Centre for Kidney Research, The New Children's Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Eur J Nucl Med. 2000 Nov;27(11):1610-6. doi: 10.1007/s002590000349.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the variability of technetium-99m dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA) scintigraphy interpretation by four nuclear medicine physicians for the diagnosis of renal parenchymal abnormality in children, and to compare variability among three different DMSA methods in clinical use: planar alone, single-photon emission tomography (SPET) alone, and planar with SPET. One hundred consecutive DMSA studies were independently interpreted 3 times by four participating nuclear medicine specialists from different departments and in random order. All scans were classified by the presence or absence of renal parenchymal abnormality using the modified four-level grading system of Goldraich. Indices of agreement were the percentage of agreement and the kappa statistic. Disagreement was analysed using children, kidneys and kidney zones (three zones per kidney). Using patients as the unit of analysis, agreement for planar and planar with SPET methods was 87%-88% (kappa 0.74) for the normal-abnormal scan classification. The corresponding agreement value for the SPET alone method was 78% (kappa 0.56). Similarly, substantial disagreement (disagreement > or = 2 categories) occurred in 2.5% and 1.3% of comparisons between observers for planar alone and planar with SPET, respectively, but in 5.2% of comparisons for SPET alone. These results did not vary appreciably whether interpretation of patients, kidneys or kidney zones was compared. It is concluded that the four experienced nuclear medicine physicians showed substantial agreement in the interpretation of planar alone and planar with SPET DMSA scintigraphic images. Interpretation of SPET DMSA images, without planar images, was significantly more variable than interpretation using the two other methods, disagreement occurring in more than 20% of comparisons. SPET DMSA scintigraphy, when used without planar images, does not provide a firm basis for clinical decision making in the care of children who may have renal damage. There is no apparent benefit of reduced variability from the extra provision of SPET data to nuclear medicine physicians who already have planar images.
本研究的目的是评估四位核医学医师对锝-99m二巯基丁二酸(DMSA)闪烁扫描成像结果解读的可变性,以用于诊断儿童肾实质异常,并比较临床使用的三种不同DMSA方法之间的可变性:单纯平面成像、单光子发射断层扫描(SPET)成像以及平面成像与SPET成像联合。来自不同科室的四位参与研究的核医学专家以随机顺序对连续100例DMSA研究进行了三次独立解读。所有扫描结果均使用改良的Goldraich四级分级系统,根据是否存在肾实质异常进行分类。一致性指标为一致率和kappa统计量。使用儿童、肾脏和肾区(每个肾脏三个区域)对分歧进行分析。以患者作为分析单位,对于正常-异常扫描分类,单纯平面成像方法与平面成像联合SPET方法的一致率为87%-88%(kappa值为0.74)。单纯SPET方法的相应一致率为78%(kappa值为0.56)。同样,在单纯平面成像和平面成像联合SPET成像的观察者间比较中,分别有2.5%和1.3%的比较出现了显著分歧(分歧≥2个类别),但在单纯SPET成像的比较中这一比例为5.2%。无论比较的是对患者、肾脏还是肾区的解读,这些结果均无明显差异。得出的结论是,四位经验丰富的核医学医师在单纯平面成像和平面成像联合SPET DMSA闪烁扫描图像的解读上表现出了较高的一致性。在不结合平面图像的情况下,对SPET DMSA图像的解读比使用其他两种方法的解读具有显著更高的可变性,超过20%的比较出现了分歧。当不使用平面图像时,SPET DMSA闪烁扫描成像不能为可能存在肾损伤的儿童的临床决策提供坚实依据。对于已经有平面图像的核医学医师,额外提供SPET数据并没有明显降低可变性的益处。