Pearls and pitfalls of structured staging and reporting of rectal cancer on MRI: an international multireader study

Najim el Khababi, R. Beets-Tan, L. Curvo-Semedo, R. Tissier, J. Nederend, M. Lahaye, M. Maas, G. Beets, D. Lambregts
{"title":"Pearls and pitfalls of structured staging and reporting of rectal cancer on MRI: an international multireader study","authors":"Najim el Khababi, R. Beets-Tan, L. Curvo-Semedo, R. Tissier, J. Nederend, M. Lahaye, M. Maas, G. Beets, D. Lambregts","doi":"10.1259/bjr.20230091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: To investigate uniformity and pitfalls in structured radiological staging of rectal cancer. Methods: Twenty-one radiologists (12 countries) staged 75 rectal cancers on MRI using a structured reporting template. Interobserver agreement (IOA) was calculated as the percentage agreement between readers (categorical variables) and Krippendorff’s α (continuous variables). Agreement with an expert consensus served as a surrogate standard of reference to estimate diagnostic accuracy. Polychoric correlation coefficients were used to assess correlations between diagnostic confidence and accuracy (=agreement with expert consensus). Results: Uniformity to diagnose high-risk (≥cT3 ab) versus low-risk (≤cT3 cd) cT-stage, cN0 versus cN+, lateral nodes and tumour deposits, MRF and sphincter involvement, and solid versus mucinous tumours was high with IOA > 80% in the majority of cases (and >80% agreement with expert consensus). Results for assessing extramural vascular invasion, cT-stage (cT1-2/cT3/cT4a/cT4b), cN-stage (cN0/N1/N2), relation to the peritoneal reflection, extent of sphincter involvement (internal/intersphincteric/external) and morphology (solid/annular/semi-annular) were considerably poorer. IOA was high (α = 0.72–0.84) for tumour height/length and extramural invasion depth, but low for tumour-MRF distance and number of (suspicious) nodes (α = 0.05–0.55). There was a significant positive correlation between diagnostic confidence and accuracy (=agreement with expert consensus) (p < 0.001-p = 0.003). Conclusions: - Several staging items lacked sufficient reproducibility. - Results for cT- and N-staging g improved when using a dichotomized stratification. - Considering the significant correlation between diagnostic confidence and accuracy, a confidence level may be incorporated into structured reporting for specific items with low reproducibility. Advances in knowledge: Although structured reporting aims to achieve uniformity in reporting, several items lack sufficient reproducibility and might benefit from dichotomized assessment and incorporating confidence levels.","PeriodicalId":226783,"journal":{"name":"The British journal of radiology","volume":"96 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The British journal of radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20230091","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate uniformity and pitfalls in structured radiological staging of rectal cancer. Methods: Twenty-one radiologists (12 countries) staged 75 rectal cancers on MRI using a structured reporting template. Interobserver agreement (IOA) was calculated as the percentage agreement between readers (categorical variables) and Krippendorff’s α (continuous variables). Agreement with an expert consensus served as a surrogate standard of reference to estimate diagnostic accuracy. Polychoric correlation coefficients were used to assess correlations between diagnostic confidence and accuracy (=agreement with expert consensus). Results: Uniformity to diagnose high-risk (≥cT3 ab) versus low-risk (≤cT3 cd) cT-stage, cN0 versus cN+, lateral nodes and tumour deposits, MRF and sphincter involvement, and solid versus mucinous tumours was high with IOA > 80% in the majority of cases (and >80% agreement with expert consensus). Results for assessing extramural vascular invasion, cT-stage (cT1-2/cT3/cT4a/cT4b), cN-stage (cN0/N1/N2), relation to the peritoneal reflection, extent of sphincter involvement (internal/intersphincteric/external) and morphology (solid/annular/semi-annular) were considerably poorer. IOA was high (α = 0.72–0.84) for tumour height/length and extramural invasion depth, but low for tumour-MRF distance and number of (suspicious) nodes (α = 0.05–0.55). There was a significant positive correlation between diagnostic confidence and accuracy (=agreement with expert consensus) (p < 0.001-p = 0.003). Conclusions: - Several staging items lacked sufficient reproducibility. - Results for cT- and N-staging g improved when using a dichotomized stratification. - Considering the significant correlation between diagnostic confidence and accuracy, a confidence level may be incorporated into structured reporting for specific items with low reproducibility. Advances in knowledge: Although structured reporting aims to achieve uniformity in reporting, several items lack sufficient reproducibility and might benefit from dichotomized assessment and incorporating confidence levels.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
结构化分期和直肠癌MRI报告的优点和缺陷:一项国际多读者研究
目的:探讨直肠癌放射分期的统一性和缺陷。方法:来自12个国家的21位放射科医生使用结构化报告模板对75例直肠癌进行MRI分期。观察者间一致性(IOA)计算为读者(分类变量)和Krippendorff α(连续变量)之间的一致性百分比。与专家共识的协议作为估计诊断准确性的替代参考标准。多重相关系数用于评估诊断置信度和准确性之间的相关性(=与专家共识的一致性)。结果:诊断高危(≥cT3 ab)和低危(≤cT3 cd) ct分期、cN0和cN+、侧结和肿瘤沉积、MRF和括约肌受累、实体瘤和黏液瘤的一致性很高,大多数病例的IOA >80%(专家共识>80%)。评估外血管侵犯的结果,ct分期(cT1-2/cT3/cT4a/cT4b), cn分期(cN0/N1/N2),与腹膜反射的关系,括约肌受累程度(内/括约肌间/外)和形态学(实性/环状/半环状)相当差。肿瘤高度/长度和外侵深度的IOA高(α = 0.72-0.84),而肿瘤- mrf距离和(可疑)淋巴结数量的IOA低(α = 0.05-0.55)。诊断置信度与准确性之间存在显著正相关(=与专家共识一致)(p < 0.001-p = 0.003)。结论:几个分期项目缺乏足够的可重复性。-使用二分类分层时,cT和n分期的结果有所改善。-考虑到诊断置信度和准确性之间的显著相关性,可将置信度水平纳入重复性低的特定项目的结构化报告中。知识的进步:虽然结构化报告旨在实现报告的一致性,但有几个项目缺乏足够的可重复性,可能受益于二分法评估和纳入置信水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pearls and pitfalls of structured staging and reporting of rectal cancer on MRI: an international multireader study The diagnostic value of quantitative assessment of MR neurography in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transhepatic or transperitoneal technique for cholecystostomy: results of the multicentre retrospective audit of cholecystostomy and further interventions (MACAFI) Pancreatic cancer, Radiomics and Artificial Intelligence: A Review. Radiomics quality score in renal masses: a systematic assessment on current literature.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1