评估图像定义的风险因素时观察者之间的差异:对局部腹盆腔神经母细胞瘤风险分层的影响。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Abdominal Radiology Pub Date : 2024-10-29 DOI:10.1007/s00261-024-04647-4
Haoru Wang, Mingjing Chen, Ling He, Xin Chen
{"title":"评估图像定义的风险因素时观察者之间的差异:对局部腹盆腔神经母细胞瘤风险分层的影响。","authors":"Haoru Wang, Mingjing Chen, Ling He, Xin Chen","doi":"10.1007/s00261-024-04647-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Risk stratification for locoregional neuroblastoma partially relies on image-defined risk factors (IDRFs). This study aimed to evaluate how inter-observer variability in assessing IDRFs impacts risk stratification in locoregional abdominopelvic neuroblastoma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on 123 patients who underwent upfront contrast-enhanced CT scans. Two radiologists independently assessed the presence of IDRFs. Patients were staged as either L1 (IDRF-negative) or L2 (IDRF-positive) according to the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group Staging System. Based on the radiologists' evaluations, 97 cases with sufficient clinical data were classified into risk groups using the revised Children's Oncology Group neuroblastoma risk classifier. The kappa values and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess inter-radiologist agreement on IDRF evaluation and risk stratification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was low agreement between radiologists in assessing L1/L2 status with a kappa value of 0.28 (95% CI: 0.14-0.42). However, agreement for evaluating the number of IDRFs was good, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.64-0.80). Based on the first radiologist's evaluation, 13 patients were classified as low-risk, 52 as intermediate-risk, and 32 as high-risk. Based on the second radiologist's evaluation, 37 patients were classified as low-risk, 37 as intermediate-risk, and 23 as high-risk. The kappa value for risk stratification between the two radiologists was 0.47 (95% CI: 0.33-0.62).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Inter-observer variability in assessing IDRF presence may affect risk stratification in locoregional abdominopelvic neuroblastoma.</p>","PeriodicalId":7126,"journal":{"name":"Abdominal Radiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inter-observer variability in assessing image-defined risk factors: implications for risk stratification in locoregional abdominopelvic neuroblastoma.\",\"authors\":\"Haoru Wang, Mingjing Chen, Ling He, Xin Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00261-024-04647-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Risk stratification for locoregional neuroblastoma partially relies on image-defined risk factors (IDRFs). This study aimed to evaluate how inter-observer variability in assessing IDRFs impacts risk stratification in locoregional abdominopelvic neuroblastoma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on 123 patients who underwent upfront contrast-enhanced CT scans. Two radiologists independently assessed the presence of IDRFs. Patients were staged as either L1 (IDRF-negative) or L2 (IDRF-positive) according to the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group Staging System. Based on the radiologists' evaluations, 97 cases with sufficient clinical data were classified into risk groups using the revised Children's Oncology Group neuroblastoma risk classifier. The kappa values and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess inter-radiologist agreement on IDRF evaluation and risk stratification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was low agreement between radiologists in assessing L1/L2 status with a kappa value of 0.28 (95% CI: 0.14-0.42). However, agreement for evaluating the number of IDRFs was good, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.64-0.80). Based on the first radiologist's evaluation, 13 patients were classified as low-risk, 52 as intermediate-risk, and 32 as high-risk. Based on the second radiologist's evaluation, 37 patients were classified as low-risk, 37 as intermediate-risk, and 23 as high-risk. The kappa value for risk stratification between the two radiologists was 0.47 (95% CI: 0.33-0.62).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Inter-observer variability in assessing IDRF presence may affect risk stratification in locoregional abdominopelvic neuroblastoma.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7126,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Abdominal Radiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Abdominal Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-024-04647-4\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Abdominal Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-024-04647-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:局部区域神经母细胞瘤的风险分层部分依赖于图像定义的风险因素(IDRFs)。本研究旨在评估在评估 IDRFs 时观察者之间的差异如何影响局部腹盆腔神经母细胞瘤的风险分层:对123例接受前期对比增强CT扫描的患者进行了回顾性分析。由两名放射科医生独立评估是否存在IDRF。根据国际神经母细胞瘤风险小组分期系统,患者被分期为L1(IDRF阴性)或L2(IDRF阳性)。根据放射科医生的评估,采用儿童肿瘤学组神经母细胞瘤风险分类修订版将97例临床数据充分的病例划分为风险组。通过计算卡帕值和95%置信区间(CIs)来评估放射科医生之间在IDRF评估和风险分层方面的一致性:在评估L1/L2状态方面,放射科医生之间的一致性较低,卡帕值为0.28(95% CI:0.14-0.42)。然而,在评估IDRF数量方面的一致性较好,类内相关系数为0.73(95% CI:0.64-0.80)。根据第一位放射科医生的评估,13 名患者被归类为低风险,52 名被归类为中风险,32 名被归类为高风险。根据第二位放射科医生的评估,37 名患者被划分为低危,37 名被划分为中危,23 名被划分为高危。两位放射科医生的风险分层卡帕值为 0.47(95% CI:0.33-0.62):结论:在评估IDRF是否存在时,观察者之间的差异可能会影响局部腹盆腔神经母细胞瘤的风险分层。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Inter-observer variability in assessing image-defined risk factors: implications for risk stratification in locoregional abdominopelvic neuroblastoma.

Purpose: Risk stratification for locoregional neuroblastoma partially relies on image-defined risk factors (IDRFs). This study aimed to evaluate how inter-observer variability in assessing IDRFs impacts risk stratification in locoregional abdominopelvic neuroblastoma.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 123 patients who underwent upfront contrast-enhanced CT scans. Two radiologists independently assessed the presence of IDRFs. Patients were staged as either L1 (IDRF-negative) or L2 (IDRF-positive) according to the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group Staging System. Based on the radiologists' evaluations, 97 cases with sufficient clinical data were classified into risk groups using the revised Children's Oncology Group neuroblastoma risk classifier. The kappa values and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess inter-radiologist agreement on IDRF evaluation and risk stratification.

Results: There was low agreement between radiologists in assessing L1/L2 status with a kappa value of 0.28 (95% CI: 0.14-0.42). However, agreement for evaluating the number of IDRFs was good, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.64-0.80). Based on the first radiologist's evaluation, 13 patients were classified as low-risk, 52 as intermediate-risk, and 32 as high-risk. Based on the second radiologist's evaluation, 37 patients were classified as low-risk, 37 as intermediate-risk, and 23 as high-risk. The kappa value for risk stratification between the two radiologists was 0.47 (95% CI: 0.33-0.62).

Conclusion: Inter-observer variability in assessing IDRF presence may affect risk stratification in locoregional abdominopelvic neuroblastoma.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Abdominal Radiology
Abdominal Radiology Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
334
期刊介绍: Abdominal Radiology seeks to meet the professional needs of the abdominal radiologist by publishing clinically pertinent original, review and practice related articles on the gastrointestinal and genitourinary tracts and abdominal interventional and radiologic procedures. Case reports are generally not accepted unless they are the first report of a new disease or condition, or part of a special solicited section. Reasons to Publish Your Article in Abdominal Radiology: · Official journal of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) · Published in Cooperation with: European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) Asian Society of Abdominal Radiology (ASAR) · Efficient handling and Expeditious review · Author feedback is provided in a mentoring style · Global readership · Readers can earn CME credits
期刊最新文献
Renovascular hypertension - a primer for the radiologist. Assessment of high-risk gastroesophageal varices in cirrhotic patients using quantitative parameters from dual-source dual-energy CT. Dynamic changes of radiological and radiomics patterns based on MRI in viable hepatocellular carcinoma after transarterial chemoembolization. Enhancing bone metastasis prediction in prostate cancer using quantitative mpMRI features, ISUP grade and PSA density: a machine learning approach. Exam quality of ultrasound and dynamic contrast-enhanced abbreviated MRI and impact on early-stage HCC detection.
×
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