English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

I was interested to read the paper by Grkovski M and colleagues published in the Dec 2016 issue of EJNMMI Res [1]. They aimed to assess the reproducibility of 18F-fluoromisonidazole (FMISO) positron emission tomography (PET) as a non-invasive, quantitative imaging technique, spatiotemporal intratumour distribution in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [1]. The Pearson correlation coefficient r was calculated for mean standardized uptake values (SUV) within investigated volumes of interest and for voxels within tumour volumes (rTV). The reproducibility of FMISO voxelwise distribution, SUVand tumour-toblood ratio (TBR)-derived indices was assessed using correlation and Bland-Altman analyses [1]. Although they correctly used Bland-Altman, they reported Pearson’s correlation r which in reproducibility (precision, repeatability, reliability, or interchangeability) is one of the common mistakes [2–6]. Pearson’s correlation r only assesses the linearity between two continuous variables. Any shift in the location and/or scale of the regression line which leads to non-reproducibility cannot be detected by this correlation coefficient [2–6]. Therefore, for quantitative variables, Intra Class Correlation Coefficient single measure is the best statistical test to evaluate reproducibility [2–6]. Based on their results, the SUVmax, SUVmean, TBRmax, and TBRmean were highly correlated (r ≥ 0.87, p < 0.001) and were reproducible to within 10–15% [1]. It is good to know that in reliability analysis, individual based approach should be considered instead of global average which Pearson’s correlation r cannot do. It means we can simply get strongly positive and significant Pearson r (r = 0.95, p value < 0.001) with no reproducibility at all. Moreover, statistically significant should not be considered in reproducibility analysis [2–6]. They concluded high reproducibility of FMISO intratumour distribution in NSCLC patients, facilitating its use in determining the topology of the hypoxic tumour sub-volumes for dose escalation, in patient stratification strategies for hypoxia-targeted therapies, and in monitoring response to therapeutic interventions. Such conclusion may be a misleading message due to inappropriate use of statistical test to assess reproducibility. Briefly, for reliability analysis, appropriate tests should be applied; otherwise, misdiagnosis and mismanagement of the patients cannot be avoided.

ejnmmi research

Reproducibility of 18F-fluoromisonidazole intratumour distribution in non-small cell lung cancer; methodological issues to avoid mismanagement of the patients