Validation of the updated Bosniak classification (2019) in pathologically confirmed CT-categorised cysts.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Scottish Medical Journal Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-18 DOI:10.1177/00369330231221235
James Lucocq, Leo Morgan, Ketan Rathod, Magdalena Szewczyk-Bieda, Ghulam Nabi
{"title":"Validation of the updated Bosniak classification (2019) in pathologically confirmed CT-categorised cysts.","authors":"James Lucocq, Leo Morgan, Ketan Rathod, Magdalena Szewczyk-Bieda, Ghulam Nabi","doi":"10.1177/00369330231221235","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The updated Bosniak classification in 2019 (v2019) addresses vague imaging terms and revises the criteria with the intent to categorise a higher proportion of cysts in lower-risk groups and reduce benign cyst resections. The aim of the present study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and inter-observer agreement rate of the original (v2005) and updated classifications (v2019).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Resected/biopsied cysts were categorised according to Bosniak classifications (v2005 and v2019) and the diagnostic accuracy was assessed with reference to histopathological analysis. The inter-observer agreement of v2005 and v2019 was determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The malignancy rate of the cohort was 83.6% (51/61). Using v2019, a higher proportion of malignant cysts were categorised as Bosniak ≥ III (88.2% vs 84.3%) and a significantly higher percentage were categorised as Bosniak IV (68.9% vs 47.1%; p = 0.049) in comparison to v2005. v2019 would have resulted in less benign cyst resections (13.5% vs 15.7%). Calcified versus non-calcified cysts had lower rates of malignancy (57.1% vs 91.5%; RR,0.62; p = 0.002). The inter-observer agreement of v2005 was higher than that of v2019 (kappa, 0.70 vs kappa, 0.43).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The updated classification improves the categorisation of malignant cysts and reduces benign cyst resection. The low inter-observer agreement remains a challenge to the updated classification system.</p>","PeriodicalId":21683,"journal":{"name":"Scottish Medical Journal","volume":" ","pages":"18-23"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scottish Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00369330231221235","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The updated Bosniak classification in 2019 (v2019) addresses vague imaging terms and revises the criteria with the intent to categorise a higher proportion of cysts in lower-risk groups and reduce benign cyst resections. The aim of the present study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and inter-observer agreement rate of the original (v2005) and updated classifications (v2019).

Method: Resected/biopsied cysts were categorised according to Bosniak classifications (v2005 and v2019) and the diagnostic accuracy was assessed with reference to histopathological analysis. The inter-observer agreement of v2005 and v2019 was determined.

Results: The malignancy rate of the cohort was 83.6% (51/61). Using v2019, a higher proportion of malignant cysts were categorised as Bosniak ≥ III (88.2% vs 84.3%) and a significantly higher percentage were categorised as Bosniak IV (68.9% vs 47.1%; p = 0.049) in comparison to v2005. v2019 would have resulted in less benign cyst resections (13.5% vs 15.7%). Calcified versus non-calcified cysts had lower rates of malignancy (57.1% vs 91.5%; RR,0.62; p = 0.002). The inter-observer agreement of v2005 was higher than that of v2019 (kappa, 0.70 vs kappa, 0.43).

Discussion: The updated classification improves the categorisation of malignant cysts and reduces benign cyst resection. The low inter-observer agreement remains a challenge to the updated classification system.

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
在病理确诊的 CT 分类囊肿中验证更新的 Bosniak 分类(2019)。
导言:2019 年更新的 Bosniak 分类(v2019)解决了成像术语模糊的问题,并修订了标准,旨在将更高比例的囊肿归入低风险组,减少良性囊肿切除。本研究旨在比较原始分类标准(v2005)和更新后的分类标准(v2019)的诊断准确性和观察者之间的一致率:根据波什尼亚克分类法(v2005 和 v2019)对切除/活检的囊肿进行分类,并参照组织病理学分析评估诊断准确性。结果表明,v2005 和 v2019 的观察者间一致性良好:结果:队列中的恶性肿瘤率为83.6%(51/61)。使用 v2019,与 v2005 相比,恶性囊肿被归类为 Bosniak ≥ III 的比例更高(88.2% vs 84.3%),被归类为 Bosniak IV 的比例明显更高(68.9% vs 47.1%;p = 0.049)。钙化与非钙化囊肿的恶性率较低(57.1% vs 91.5%;RR,0.62;p = 0.002)。v2005的观察者间一致性高于v2019(kappa, 0.70 vs kappa, 0.43):讨论:更新后的分类改进了恶性囊肿的分类,减少了良性囊肿的切除。观察者之间的一致性较低仍是更新版分类系统面临的挑战。
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
Scottish Medical Journal
Scottish Medical Journal 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
42
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: A unique international information source for the latest news and issues concerning the Scottish medical community. Contributions are drawn from Scotland and its medical institutions, through an array of international authors. In addition to original papers, Scottish Medical Journal publishes commissioned educational review articles, case reports, historical articles, and sponsoring society abstracts.This journal is a member of the Committee on Publications Ethics (COPE).
期刊最新文献
The state of robotic surgery in Spain: Results of a national survey on robotic surgery. Influence of core stabilization exercise on physical function and muscle thickness in patients with chronic stroke: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Pancreatic insulinomas: Our 15-year surgical experience. Efficacy and outcomes of a highland prehospital trauma response team. Ribosome-binding protein-1 (RRBP1) expression in prostate carcinomas and its relationship with clinicopathological prognostic factors.
×
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:481959085
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