Inter-reader agreement of RECIST and mRECIST criteria for assessing response to transarterial chemoembolization in hepatocellular carcinoma.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Saeed Mohammadzadeh, Alisa Mohebbi, Ali Abdi, Afshin Mohammadi
{"title":"Inter-reader agreement of RECIST and mRECIST criteria for assessing response to transarterial chemoembolization in hepatocellular carcinoma.","authors":"Saeed Mohammadzadeh, Alisa Mohebbi, Ali Abdi, Afshin Mohammadi","doi":"10.1186/s12880-025-01688-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the reproducibilities of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and modified RECIST (mRECIST) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients treated with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) using contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included 105 consecutive patients with confirmed HCC recruited from November 2002 to June 2012. The study protocol has been pre-registered at ( https://osf.io/nxg4q/ ) on the Open Science Framework (OSF) platform. Patients with pre-procedural and follow-up CT scans who had solely received TACE were included. The tumor response evaluation to TACE was conducted using RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST guidelines. Three experienced board-certified abdominal radiologists interpreted CT scans.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For pre-procedure CT, the agreement was more excellent when using RECIST guidelines with a \"marginally significant\" p-value of 0.056. This trend continued for post-procedural CT scans, with RECIST again showing significantly higher agreement with a p-value of 0.001. When evaluating the four categories of response, Gwet's coefficient was 0.90 (CI = 0.83 to 0.97) for RECIST and 0.80 (CI = 0.63 to 0.90) for mRECIST. Conversely, the Fleiss Kappa analysis demonstrated a higher agreement for the mRECIST guideline. There was an insignificant difference in RECIST and mRECIST guidelines inter-reader agreement when categorizing the tumor response with a p-value of 0.101.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both guidelines' inter-reader reproducibility in assessing tumor response through CT after the TACE procedure was excellent, with RECIST's reproducibility being very slightly better.</p>","PeriodicalId":9020,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Imaging","volume":"25 1","pages":"148"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12049784/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-025-01688-z","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

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the reproducibilities of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and modified RECIST (mRECIST) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients treated with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) using contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT).

Methods: This retrospective study included 105 consecutive patients with confirmed HCC recruited from November 2002 to June 2012. The study protocol has been pre-registered at ( https://osf.io/nxg4q/ ) on the Open Science Framework (OSF) platform. Patients with pre-procedural and follow-up CT scans who had solely received TACE were included. The tumor response evaluation to TACE was conducted using RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST guidelines. Three experienced board-certified abdominal radiologists interpreted CT scans.

Results: For pre-procedure CT, the agreement was more excellent when using RECIST guidelines with a "marginally significant" p-value of 0.056. This trend continued for post-procedural CT scans, with RECIST again showing significantly higher agreement with a p-value of 0.001. When evaluating the four categories of response, Gwet's coefficient was 0.90 (CI = 0.83 to 0.97) for RECIST and 0.80 (CI = 0.63 to 0.90) for mRECIST. Conversely, the Fleiss Kappa analysis demonstrated a higher agreement for the mRECIST guideline. There was an insignificant difference in RECIST and mRECIST guidelines inter-reader agreement when categorizing the tumor response with a p-value of 0.101.

Conclusion: Both guidelines' inter-reader reproducibility in assessing tumor response through CT after the TACE procedure was excellent, with RECIST's reproducibility being very slightly better.

评估肝细胞癌经动脉化疗栓塞反应的RECIST和mRECIST标准的读者间共识。
目的:利用对比增强计算机断层扫描(CT)评估经动脉化疗栓塞(TACE)治疗的肝细胞癌(HCC)患者实体瘤反应评价标准(RECIST)和改良RECIST (mRECIST)的可重复性。方法:本回顾性研究纳入了2002年11月至2012年6月期间连续招募的105例确诊HCC患者。该研究方案已在开放科学框架(OSF)平台(https://osf.io/nxg4q/)上预先注册。仅接受TACE的术前和随访CT扫描患者被纳入研究。采用RECIST 1.1和mRECIST指南对TACE的肿瘤反应进行评估。三名经验丰富的腹部放射科医生解释了CT扫描结果。结果:对于术前CT,使用RECIST指南时,一致性更优,p值为0.056,“边际显著”。这一趋势在术后CT扫描中继续存在,RECIST再次显示出显著更高的一致性,p值为0.001。当评估四类反应时,RECIST的Gwet系数为0.90 (CI = 0.83至0.97),mRECIST的Gwet系数为0.80 (CI = 0.63至0.90)。相反,Fleiss Kappa分析显示mRECIST指南具有更高的一致性。在对肿瘤反应进行分类时,RECIST和mRECIST指南的读者间一致性差异不显著,p值为0.101。结论:两份指南在通过CT评估TACE术后肿瘤反应方面的可重复性都很好,而RECIST指南的可重复性略好。
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
BMC Medical Imaging
BMC Medical Imaging RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
3.70%
发文量
198
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Imaging is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in the development, evaluation, and use of imaging techniques and image processing tools to diagnose and manage disease.
×
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