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.
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信