Virtual reality volumetric rendering versus cross-sectional imaging for pancreatic cancer resectability assessment: a pilot randomized controlled reader study.
Karl Eisenträger, Kaya Saribeyoglu, Uli Fehrenbach, Matthäus Felsenstein, Lea Timmermann, Pedro Lua Machado Pereira, Wenzel Schöning, Benjamin Strücker, Johann Pratschke, Andreas Pascher, Thomas Malinka, Igor Maximilian Sauer, Haluk Morgul, Moritz Queisner
{"title":"Virtual reality volumetric rendering versus cross-sectional imaging for pancreatic cancer resectability assessment: a pilot randomized controlled reader study.","authors":"Karl Eisenträger, Kaya Saribeyoglu, Uli Fehrenbach, Matthäus Felsenstein, Lea Timmermann, Pedro Lua Machado Pereira, Wenzel Schöning, Benjamin Strücker, Johann Pratschke, Andreas Pascher, Thomas Malinka, Igor Maximilian Sauer, Haluk Morgul, Moritz Queisner","doi":"10.1186/s42234-026-00202-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BACKGROUND: Current imaging assessment for pancreatic cancer resectability demonstrates problematic inter-observer variability, with only fair-to-moderate agreement among experienced raters. Virtual reality technology offers stereoscopic three-dimensional visualization that may improve diagnostic accuracy and agreement. However, optimal visualization strategies for clinical adoption remain unclear. METHODS: Ten hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons from two high-volume centers were randomized 1:1 to assess twelve contrast-enhanced CT cases using either VR volumetric rendering or CSI. Primary outcomes included inter-rater agreement, diagnostic accuracy against expert reference standard, assessment time, and surgeon confidence. Statistical analysis employed Fleiss’ κ for inter-rater agreement and two-sided Mann–Whitney U tests on surgeon-level summary measures for between-group comparisons. RESULTS: CSI display on 2D screens achieved substantial inter-rater agreement for resectability assessment (κ = 0.609) while VR demonstrated only slight agreement (κ = 0.127). Diagnostic accuracy was superior with CSI (84.7% vs. 79.7%), with the most pronounced difference in resectability determination (83.3% vs. 58.3%, p = 0.033). VR users reported significantly lower confidence (4.85 ± 1.15 vs. 6.32 ± 0.77, p = 0.028). Assessment times were comparable between groups (median 313.5 s vs. 327.5 s, p = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary investigation, our VR visualization strategy demonstrated lower diagnostic accuracy and inter-rater agreement than CSI. However, prior studies suggest that VR systems employing alternative, hybrid visualization approaches may improve inter-rater agreement, indicating that visualization strategy, rather than VR technology per se, is the primary determinant of utility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00033932 (German Clinical Trials Register), registered prospectively. </p>","PeriodicalId":72363,"journal":{"name":"Bioelectronic medicine","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12969899/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioelectronic medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42234-026-00202-2","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
BACKGROUND: Current imaging assessment for pancreatic cancer resectability demonstrates problematic inter-observer variability, with only fair-to-moderate agreement among experienced raters. Virtual reality technology offers stereoscopic three-dimensional visualization that may improve diagnostic accuracy and agreement. However, optimal visualization strategies for clinical adoption remain unclear. METHODS: Ten hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons from two high-volume centers were randomized 1:1 to assess twelve contrast-enhanced CT cases using either VR volumetric rendering or CSI. Primary outcomes included inter-rater agreement, diagnostic accuracy against expert reference standard, assessment time, and surgeon confidence. Statistical analysis employed Fleiss’ κ for inter-rater agreement and two-sided Mann–Whitney U tests on surgeon-level summary measures for between-group comparisons. RESULTS: CSI display on 2D screens achieved substantial inter-rater agreement for resectability assessment (κ = 0.609) while VR demonstrated only slight agreement (κ = 0.127). Diagnostic accuracy was superior with CSI (84.7% vs. 79.7%), with the most pronounced difference in resectability determination (83.3% vs. 58.3%, p = 0.033). VR users reported significantly lower confidence (4.85 ± 1.15 vs. 6.32 ± 0.77, p = 0.028). Assessment times were comparable between groups (median 313.5 s vs. 327.5 s, p = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary investigation, our VR visualization strategy demonstrated lower diagnostic accuracy and inter-rater agreement than CSI. However, prior studies suggest that VR systems employing alternative, hybrid visualization approaches may improve inter-rater agreement, indicating that visualization strategy, rather than VR technology per se, is the primary determinant of utility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00033932 (German Clinical Trials Register), registered prospectively.
背景:目前对胰腺癌可切除性的影像学评估显示出存在问题的观察者之间的差异,经验丰富的评分者之间只有公平到中等程度的一致性。虚拟现实技术提供了立体的三维可视化,可以提高诊断的准确性和一致性。然而,临床采用的最佳可视化策略仍不清楚。方法:来自两个大容量中心的10名肝胆胰外科医生以1:1的比例随机分配,使用VR体积渲染或CSI评估12例对比增强CT病例。主要结果包括评分者之间的一致性、相对于专家参考标准的诊断准确性、评估时间和外科医生的信心。统计分析采用Fleiss’k来表示评分者间的一致性,采用双侧Mann-Whitney U检验来表示组间比较。结果:CSI在2D屏幕上显示的可切除性评估具有显著的评分一致性(κ = 0.609),而VR仅显示轻微的一致性(κ = 0.127)。CSI的诊断准确率更高(84.7% vs. 79.7%),可切除性的判定差异最大(83.3% vs. 58.3%, p = 0.033)。VR用户报告的置信度显著降低(4.85±1.15比6.32±0.77,p = 0.028)。两组间评估时间具有可比性(中位数313.5 s vs 327.5 s, p = 1.00)。结论:在这项初步调查中,我们的VR可视化策略显示出较低的诊断准确性和评分间一致性。然而,先前的研究表明,采用替代的混合可视化方法的VR系统可能会提高评分者之间的一致性,这表明可视化策略,而不是VR技术本身,是效用的主要决定因素。试验注册:DRKS00033932(德国临床试验注册),前瞻性注册。