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。

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Saeed Mohammadzadeh, Alisa Mohebbi, Ali Abdi, Afshin Mohammadi
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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

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.

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
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