[en] Staging of upper extremity lymphedema is needed to guide surgical management, but is not standardized due to lack of accessible, quantitative, or precise measures. Here, we established an MRI-based staging system for lymphedema and validate it against existing clinical measures. Bilateral upper extremity MRI and lymphoscintigraphy were performed on 45 patients with unilateral secondary lymphedema, due to surgical intervention, who were referred to our multidisciplinary lymphedema clinic between March 2017 and October 2018. MRI short-tau inversion recovery (STIR) images were retrospectively reviewed. A grading system was established based on the cross-sectional circumferential extent of subcutaneous fluid infiltration at three locations, labeled MRI stage 0–3, and was compared to L-Dex${}^{\mathrm{\circledR <!--\; ??\; -->}}$ ICG lymphography, volume, lymphedema quality of life (LYMQOL), International Society of Lymphology (ISL) stage, and lymphoscintigraphy. Linear weighted Cohen’s kappa was calculated to compare MRI staging by two readers. STIR images on MRI revealed a predictable pattern of fluid infiltration centered on the elbow and extending along the posterior aspect of the upper arm and the ulnar side of the forearm. Patients with higher MRI stage were more likely to be in ISL stage 2 (p = 0.002) or to demonstrate dermal backflow on lymphoscintigraphy (p = 0.0002). No correlation was found between MRI stages and LYMQOL. Higher MRI stage correlated with abnormal ICG lymphography pattern (r${}_s$ = 0.63, p < 0.0001), larger % difference in limb volume (r${}_s$ = 0.68, p < 0.0001), and higher L-Dex${}^{\mathrm{\circledR <!--\; ??\; -->}}$ ratio (r${}_s$ = 0.84, p < 0.0001). Cohen’s kappa was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.85–1.00). An MRI staging system for upper extremity lymphedema offers an improved non-invasive precision marker for lymphedema for therapeutic planning.

[en] The purpose of these guidelines is to assist physicians in recommending, performing, interpreting and reporting the results of FDG PET/CT for oncological imaging of adult patients. PET is a quantitative imaging technique and therefore requires a common quality control (QC)/quality assurance (QA) procedure to maintain the accuracy and precision of quantitation. Repeatability and reproducibility are two essential requirements for any quantitative measurement and/or imaging biomarker. Repeatability relates to the uncertainty in obtaining the same result in the same patient when he or she is examined more than once on the same system. However, imaging biomarkers should also have adequate reproducibility, i.e. the ability to yield the same result in the same patient when that patient is examined on different systems and at different imaging sites. Adequate repeatability and reproducibility are essential for the clinical management of patients and the use of FDG PET/CT within multicentre trials. A common standardised imaging procedure will help promote the appropriate use of FDG PET/CT imaging and increase the value of publications and, therefore, their contribution to evidence-based medicine. Moreover, consistency in numerical values between platforms and institutes that acquire the data will potentially enhance the role of semiquantitative and quantitative image interpretation. Precision and accuracy are additionally important as FDG PET/CT is used to evaluate tumour response as well as for diagnosis, prognosis and staging. Therefore both the previous and these new guidelines specifically aim to achieve standardised uptake value harmonisation in multicentre settings. (orig.)