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/

Zendy Pro

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Presents AI Discovery search usage as a premium feature

AI Discovery

Presents AI Discovery explain and summary usage as a premium feature

Content Analysis

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

1500 Top-up

3000 Top-up

Zendy Basic

2500 Top-up

Zendy Unlimited

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Recent studies have reported the usefulness of 18 F-FDG PET in aiding with the diagnosis and management of patients with cardiac sarcoidosis (CS). However, image interpretation of 18 F-FDG PET for CS is sometimes challenging. We sought to investigate the inter- and intraobserver agreement and explore factors that led to important discrepancies between readers. Methods: We studied consecutive patients with no significant coronary artery disease who were referred for assessment of CS. Two experienced readers masked to clinical information, imaging reports, independently reviewed 18 F-FDG PET/CT images. 18 F-FDG PET/CT images were interpreted according to a predefined standard operating procedure, with cardiac 18 F-FDG uptake patterns categorized into 5 patterns: none, focal, focal on diffuse, diffuse, and isolated lateral wall or basal uptake. Overall image assessment was classified as either consistent with active CS or not. Results: One hundred scans were included from 71 patients. Of these, 46 underwen 18 F-FDG PET/CT with a no-restriction diet (no-restriction group), and 54 underwen 18 F-FDG PET/CT with a low-carbohydrate, high-fat and protein-permitted diet (low-carb group). There was agreement of the interpretation category in 74 of 100 scans. The κ-value of agreement among all 5 categories was 0.64, indicating moderate agreement. For overall clinical interpretation, there was agreement in 93 of 100 scans (κ = 0.85). When scans were divided into the preparation groups, there was a trend toward higher agreement in the low-carb group versus the no-restriction group (80% vs. 67%, P = 0.08). Regarding the overall clinical interpretation, there was also a trend toward greater agreement in the low-carb group versus the no-restriction group (96% vs. 89%, P = 0.08). Conclusion : The interobserver agreement of cardiac 18 F-FDG uptake image patterns was moderate. However, agreement was better regarding overall interpretation of CS. Detailed prescan dietary preparation seemed to improve interobserver agreement.

Inter- and Intraobserver Agreement of 18F-FDG PET/CT Image Interpretation in Patients Referred for Assessment of Cardiac Sarcoidosis

Inter- and Intraobserver Agreement of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT Image Interpretation in Patients Referred for Assessment of Cardiac Sarcoidosis