Equivocal scanning results occur. It remains unclear how these results are presented and their management influence diagnostic characteristics.
Purpose
To investigate the reporting and handling of equivocal imaging findings in diagnostic studies of bone metastases, and to assess the impact on diagnostic performance of the methods used to analyze equivocal findings. The conceptual issue was reified based on two actual observations.
Material and Methods
A recent meta-analysis of bone metastases in prostate cancer was conducted and data were obtained from a large clinical trial with a true reference of bone metastasis, where diagnostic characteristics were calculated with equivocal scans handled by: removal; considered malignant; considered benign; and intention-to-diagnose.
Results
The meta-analysis included 18 trials where the median proportion of reported equivocal results was 27%. Eleven (61%) studies reported an equivocal option for the index test, 42% reported equivocal results and described how these were analyzed. The clinical trial included 583 prostate cancer patients with 20% equivocal results. The different methods of managing equivocal findings resulted in highly variable outcomes: sensitivity = 85%–100%; specificity = 78%–99%; and positive and negative predictive values = 44%–94% and 97%–100%, respectively. The diagnostic performances obtained using the four methods were differentially susceptible to the proportion of equivocal imaging findings and the prevalence of bone metastases.
Conclusion
Reporting of equivocal results was inadequate in bone imaging trials. The handling of equivocal findings strongly influenced diagnostic accuracy.
ZachoHDBarsiTMortensenJC, et al.
Prospective multicenter study of bone scintigraphy in consecutive patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.Clin Nucl Med2014;
39:26–31.
2.
BrigantiAPassoniNFerrariM, et al.
When to perform bone scan in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer: external validation of the currently available guidelines and proposal of a novel risk stratification tool.Eur Urol2010;
57:551–558.
3.
RoweSPJavadiMSAllafME, et al.
Characterization of indeterminate renal masses with molecular imaging: how do we turn potential into reality?EJNMMI Res2017;
7:34.
4.
ForstnerRThomassin-NaggaraICunhaTM, et al.
ESUR recommendations for MR imaging of the sonographically indeterminate adnexal mass: an update.Eur Radiol2017;
27:2248–2257.
5.
CurtisBRCoxMPoplawskiM, et al.
Low yield of ventilation and perfusion imaging for the evaluation of pulmonary embolism after indeterminate CT pulmonary angiography.Emerg Radiol2017;
24:525–530.
6.
XuXQQianWMaG, et al.
Combined diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for differentiating radiologically indeterminate malignant from benign orbital masses.Clin Radiol2017;
72:903.e9–903.e15.
7.
ShinkinsBThompsonMMallettS, et al.
Diagnostic accuracy studies: how to report and analyse inconclusive test results.BMJ2013;
346:f2778.
8.
BossuytPMReitsmaJBBrunsDE, et al.
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative.BMJ2003;
326:41–44.
9.
SchuetzGMSchlattmannPDeweyM.Use of 3x2 tables with an intention to diagnose approach to assess clinical performance of diagnostic tests: meta-analytical evaluation of coronary CT angiography studies.BMJ2012;
345:e6717.
10.
MenkeJKowalskiJ.Diagnostic accuracy and utility of coronary CT angiography with consideration of unevaluable results: a systematic review and multivariate Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis with intention to diagnose.Eur Radiol2016;
26:451–458.
11.
MaXSuriMFChuH.A trivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic studies accounting for prevalence and non-evaluable subjects: re-evaluation of the meta-analysis of coronary CT angiography studies.BMC Med Res Methodol2014;
14:128.
12.
ShenGDengHHuS, et al.
Comparison of choline-PET/CT, MRI, SPECT, and bone scintigraphy in the diagnosis of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis.Skeletal Radiol2014;
43:1503–1513.
13.
ZachoHDBarsiTMortensenJC, et al.
Validation of contemporary guidelines for bone scintigraphy in prostate cancer staging: a prospective study in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy.Scand J Urol2016;
50:29–32.
14.
BeheshtiMValiRWaldenbergerP, et al.
The use of F-18 choline PET in the assessment of bone metastases in prostate cancer: correlation with morphological changes on CT.Mol Imaging Biol2010;
12:98–107.
15.
Even-SapirEMetserUMishaniE, et al.
The detection of bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: 99mTc-MDP Planar bone scintigraphy, single- and multi-field-of-view SPECT, 18F-fluoride PET, and 18F-fluoride PET/CT. J Nucl Med2006;
47:287–297.
16.
FuccioCCastellucciPSchiavinaR, et al.
Role of 11C-choline PET/CT in the restaging of prostate cancer patients showing a single lesion on bone scintigraphy.Ann Nucl Med2010;
24:485–492.
17.
GiovanellaLCastellaniMSurianoS, et al.
Multi-field-of-view SPECT is superior to whole-body scanning for assessing metastatic bone disease in patients with prostate cancer.Tumori2011;
97:629–633.
18.
LecouvetFEElMouedden JColletteL, et al.
Can whole-body magnetic resonance imaging with diffusion-weighted imaging replace Tc 99m bone scanning and computed tomography for single-step detection of metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer?Eur Urol2012;
62:68–75.
19.
McCarthyMSiewTCampbellA, et al.
(1)(8)F-Fluoromethylcholine (FCH) PET imaging in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer: prospective comparison with standard imaging.Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging2011;
38:14–22.
20.
VenkitaramanRCookGJDearnaleyDP, et al.
Does magnetic resonance imaging of the spine have a role in the staging of prostate cancer?Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)2009;
21:39–42.
21.
MosaviFJohanssonSSandbergDT, et al.
Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI compared with (18)F-NaF PET/CT for detection of bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate carcinoma.AJR Am J Roentgenol2012;
199:1114–1120.
22.
LecouvetFEGeukensDStainierA, et al.
Magnetic resonance imaging of the axial skeleton for detecting bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: diagnostic and cost-effectiveness and comparison with current detection strategies.J Clin Oncol2007;
25:3281–3287.
23.
NozakiTYasudaKAkashiT, et al.
Usefulness of single photon emission computed tomography imaging in the detection of lumbar vertebral metastases from prostate cancer.Int J Urol2008;
15:516–519.
24.
PicchioMSpinapoliceEGFallancaF, et al.
[11C]Choline PET/CT detection of bone metastases in patients with PSA progression after primary treatment for prostate cancer: comparison with bone scintigraphy.Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging2012;
39:13–26.
25.
PoulsenMHPetersenHHøilund-CarlsenPF, et al.
Detection of bone metastases from prostate cancer: a prospective study of 99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy, 18F-fluorocholine PET/CT, 18F-fluoride PET/CT compared with MRI.Eur Urol Suppl2012;
11:1.
26.
TakeshMOdat AllhKAdamsS, et al.
Diagnostic role of (18)F-FECH-PET/CT compared with bone scan in evaluating the prostate cancer patients referring with biochemical recurrence.ISRN Oncol2012;
2012:815234.
27.
WangXZhangCJiangX.Prospective study of bone metastasis from prostate cancer: comparison between large field duffusion-weighted imaging and bone scintigraphy.Chin J Radiol2009;
43:6.
28.
VenkitaramanRCookGJDearnaleyDP, et al.
Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of skeletal metastases in patients with prostate cancer.J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol2009;
53:241–247.
29.
PicchioMFallancaFSpinapoliceE, et al.
Comparison of [11C]Choline PET/CT and bone scintigraphy in the detection of bone metastasis in patients with biochemical failure after primary treatment for prostate cancer.Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging2010;
37:1.
30.
BeheshtiMValiRWaldenbergerP, et al.
Detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer by 18F fluorocholine and 18F fluoride PET-CT: a comparative study.Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging2008;
35:1766–1774.
31.
LangstegerWBalogovaSHuchetV, et al.
Fluorocholine (18F) and sodium fluoride (18F) PET/CT in the detection of prostate cancer: prospective comparison of diagnostic performance determined by masked reading. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging2011;
55:448–457.
32.
ZachoHDManresaJAMortensenJC, et al.
Observer agreement and accuracy in the evaluation of bone scans in newly diagnosed prostate cancer.Nucl Med Commun2015;
36:445–451.
33.
SimelDLFeussnerJRDeLongER, et al.
Intermediate, indeterminate, and uninterpretable diagnostic test results.Med Decis Making1987;
7:107–114.
34.
BeggCBGreenesRAIglewiczB.The influence of uninterpretability on the assessment of diagnostic tests.J Chronic Dis1986;
39:575–584.
35.
PoynardTChaputJCEtienneJP.Relations between effectiveness of a diagnostic test, prevalence of the disease, and percentages of uninterpretable results. An example in the diagnosis of jaundice.Med Decis Making1982;
2:285–297.
36.
ZhouJGouZWuR, et al.
Comparison of PSMA-PET/CT, choline-PET/CT, NaF-PET/CT, MRI, and bone scintigraphy in the diagnosis of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Skeletal Radiol2019;
48:1915–1924.
37.
LecouvetFEOprea-LagerDELiuY, et al.
Use of modern imaging methods to facilitate trials of metastasis-directed therapy for oligometastatic disease in prostate cancer: a consensus recommendation from the EORTC Imaging Group.Lancet Oncol2018;
19:e534–e545.
38.
ZachoHJochumsenMRLangkildeNC, et al.
No added value of (18)F-sodium fluoride PET/CT for the detection of bone metastases in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer with normal bone scintigraphy. J Nucl Med2019. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.119.22906.
39.
ZachoHDManresaJABAleksynieneR, et al.
Three-minute SPECT/CT is sufficient for the assessment of bone metastasis as add-on to planar bone scintigraphy: prospective head-to-head comparison to 11-min SPECT/CT.EJNMMI Res2017;
7:1.
40.
PykaTOkamotoSDahlbenderM, et al.
Comparison of bone scintigraphy and 68Ga-PSMA PET for skeletal staging in prostate cancer.Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging2016;
43:2114–2121.
41.
RoweSPMacuraKJCiaralloA, et al.
Comparison of prostate-specific membrane antigen-based 18F-DCFBC PET/CT to conventional imaging modalities for detection of hormone-naive and castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer.J Nucl Med2016;
57:46–53.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
