PET/CT in Cancer

Summary

Objectives: When the combined diagnostic imaging technique PET/CT is considered promising with respect to diagnosis/staging of a certain cancer type, a systematic investigation by means of clinical diagnostic studies in the target population is necessary to evaluate the usefulness of PET/CT compared to the current standard. It is often difficult to decide in advance whether it is appropriate to plan a superiority or non-inferiority study. We propose a statistical analysis strategy which is flexible enough to cope with both aims alike.

Methods: In opposition to clinical studies on drugs, each patient can be subjected to both PET/CT and the current standard, leading to paired observations of binary data (e.g., cancer = yes/no, stage = 0/1+). The analysis strategy focuses on point estimates and confidence intervals for the difference (or relative increase) in accuracy measures.

Results: Formulas for approximate 95% confidence intervals for the differences in sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values between PET/CT and the standard procedures are given, respectively. The strategy can also be applied if results obtained with a golden standard are not available in patients in whom both PET/CT and the standard procedure gave negative results. Sample sizes can and should be determined in an adaptive manner.

Conclusions: Diagnostic studies to assess the merit of PET/CT in the diagnostic work-up of cancer patients can and should start with phase II studies focusing on 95% confidence intervals for differences in diagnostic measures. Even if the gold standard procedure is incomplete, the statistical analysis strategy given here may still be applicable.

Keywords

Sensitivity - specificity - predictive values - feasibility - sample size

• References

• 1 Antoch G, Vogt FM, Freudenberg LS, Nazaradeh F, Goehde SC, Barkhausen J. et al. Whole-body dual-modality PET/CT and whole-body MRI for tumor staging in oncology. JAMA 2003; 290: 3199-3206.
• 2 Reinhardt MJ, Joe AY, Jaeger U, Huber A, Matthies A, Bucerius J. et al. Diagnostic performance of whole body dual modality 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging for N- and M-staging of malignant mel-anoma: experience with 250 consecutive patients. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 1178-1187.
• 3 Veit P, Ruehm S, Kuehl H, Stergar H, Mueller S, Bockisch A. et al. Lymph node staging with dualmodality PET/CT: enhancing the diagnostic accuracy in oncology. Eur J Radiol 2006; 58: 383-389.
• 4 Veit-Haibach P, Kuehle CA, Beyer T, Stergar H, Kuehl H, Schmidt J. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of colorectal cancer staging with whole-body PET/ CT colonography. JAMA 2006; 296: 2590-2600.
• 5 Freedman LS. Evaluating and comparing imaging techniques: a review and classification of study designs. Brit J Radiol 1987; 60: 1071-1081.
• 6 Zhou XH, Obuchowski NA, McClish DK. Statistical methods in diagnostic medicine. New York: Wiley; 2002
• 7 Valenstein PN. Evaluating diagnostic tests with imperfect standards. Am J Clin Pathol 1990; 93: 252-258.
• 8 Cowan WK, Angus B, Gray JC, Lunt LG, Ramedan Al-Tamimi S. A study of interval breast cancer within the NHS breast screening program. J Clin Pathol 2000; 53: 140-146.
• 9 Swets JA, Pickett RM. Evaluation of diagnostic systems – Methods from signal detection theory. New York, London: Academic Press; 1982
• 10 Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley; 2003
• 11 Schatzkin A, Connor RJ, Taylor PR, Bunnag B. Comparing new and old screening tests when a reference procedure cannot be performed on all screenees. Am J Epidemiol 1987; 125: 672-678.
• 12 Pepe MS. The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003
• 13 O’Brien PC. Data and safety monitoring. In: Armitage P, Colton T. editors. Encyclopedia of biostatistics. Chichester: Wiley; 1998
• 14 Moyé LA. Statistical monitoring of clinical trials – Fundamentals for investigators. NewYork: Springer; 2006
• 15 Clopper C, Pearson S. The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika 1934; 26: 404-413.
• 16 Oehlert GW. A note on the delta method. Am Stat 1992; 46: 27-29.
• 17 Rice JA. Mathematical statistics and data analysis. 3rd ed. Belmont/California: Duxbury; 2006