Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of two semi-quantitative scoring systems to assess response to (131)I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (mIBG) therapy in recurrent neuroblastoma. PROCEDURES: Diagnostic mIBG scan pairs (n = 57) were collected for patients who underwent (131)I-mIBG therapy for relapsed neuroblastoma. Two scoring systems were designated: Method 1, which divided the body into nine segments to view osteomedullary lesions with an additional tenth segment to assess soft tissue involvement; and Method 2, which divided the body into seven segments without a corresponding compartment for soft tissue involvement. Four nuclear medicine physicians independently assigned extension and intensity scores utilizing both methods, and separately recorded their impression of whether the post-therapy scan had improved, not changed, or worsened. Inter- and intra-observer concordance and correlation with overall response and progression-free survival (PFS) were performed. RESULTS: Method 1 produced the highest inter-observer concordance and was used to calculate the relative extension scores (post-therapy score divided by pre-therapy score), which correlated significantly with overall response. Patients who achieved complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) (n = 21) had lower relative extension scores, compared to those without response (P < 0.001). The readers' overall impression associated highly (P < 0.001) with the relative extension scores though results were less quantitative. Concordance was higher if initial scores were >5. Relative extension score did not predict PFS. CONCLUSION: Semi-quantitative scoring of mIBG scans provides a more reliable method of assessing response in patients with relapsed neuroblastoma than qualitative impression. The reproducibility and high inter-observer concordance makes mIBG score an important component of overall response criteria in patients with recurrent neuroblastoma.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Messina et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: