A multicenter assessment of interreader reliability of LI-RADS version 2018 for MRI and CT

Cheng William Hong et al., « A multicenter assessment of interreader reliability of LI-RADS version 2018 for MRI and CT », Papyrus : le dépôt institutionnel de l'Université de Montréal, ID : 10.1148/radiol.222855

Partage / Export

Résumé 0

Background: Various limitations have impacted research evaluating reader agreement for Liver Imaging-Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS). Purpose: To assess reader agreement of LI-RADS in an international multi-center, multireader setting using scrollable images. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study used de-identified clinical multiphase CT and MRI examinations and reports with at least one untreated observation from six institutions and three countries; only qualifying examinations were submitted. Examination dates were October 2017 – August 2018 at the coordinating center. One untreated observation per examination was randomly selected using observation identifiers, and its clinically assigned features were extracted from the report. The corresponding LI-RADS v2018 category was computed as a re-scored clinical read. Each examination was randomly assigned to two of 43 research readers who independently scored the observation. Agreement for an ordinal modified four-category LI-RADS scale (LR-1/2, LR-3, LR-4, LR-5/M/tumor in vein) was computed using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). Agreement was also computed for dichotomized malignancy (LR-4/LR5/LR-M/LR-tumor in vein), LR-5, and LR-M. Agreement was compared between researchversus-research reads and research-versus-clinical reads. Results: 484 patients (mean age, 62 years ±10 [SD]; 156 women; 93 CT, 391 MRI) were included. ICCs for ordinal LI-RADS, dichotomized malignancy, LR-5, and LR-M were 0.68 (95% CI: 0.62, 0.74), 0.63 (95% CI: 0.56, 0.71), 0.58 (95% CI: 0.50, 0.66), and 0.46 (95% CI: 0.31, 0.61) respectively. Research-versus-research reader agreement was higher than research-versus-clinical agreement for modified four-category LI-RADS (ICC, 0.68 vs. 0.62, P = .03) and for dichotomized malignancy (ICC, 0.63 vs. 0.53, P = .005), but not for LR-5 (P = .14) or LR-M (P = .94). Conclusion: There was moderate agreement for Liver Imaging-Reporting and Data System v2018 overall. For some comparisons, research-versus-research reader agreement was higher than research-versus-clinical reader agreement, indicating differences between the clinical and research environments that warrant further study.

{"uri":"10670\/1.6vpijn","creators":[{"id":"hong_cheng_william","lastname":"Hong"},{"id":"chernyak_victoria","lastname":"Chernyak"},{"id":"choi_jin_young","lastname":"Choi"},{"id":"lee_sonia","lastname":"Lee"},{"id":"potu_chetan","lastname":"Potu"},{"id":"delgado_timoteo","lastname":"Delgado"},{"id":"wolfson_tanya","lastname":"Wolfson"},{"id":"gamst_anthony","lastname":"Gamst"},{"id":"birnbaum_jason","lastname":"Birnbaum"},{"id":"kampalath_rony","lastname":"Kampalath"},{"id":"lall_chandana","lastname":"Lall"},{"id":"lee_james","lastname":"Lee"},{"id":"owen_joseph_w","lastname":"Owen"},{"id":"aguirre_diego","lastname":"Aguirre"},{"id":"mendiratta_lala_mishal","lastname":"Mendiratta-Lala"},{"id":"davenport_matthew_s","lastname":"Davenport"},{"id":"masch_william_r","lastname":"Masch"},{"id":"roudenko_alexandra","lastname":"Roudenko"},{"id":"lewis_sara_c","lastname":"Lewis"},{"id":"kierans_andrea_s","lastname":"Kierans"},{"id":"hecht_elizabeth_m","lastname":"Hecht"},{"id":"bashir_mustafa_r","lastname":"Bashir"},{"id":"brancatelli_giuseppe","lastname":"Brancatelli"},{"id":"douek_michael_l","lastname":"Douek"},{"id":"ohliger_michael_a","lastname":"Ohliger"},{"id":"tang_an","lastname":"Tang"},{"id":"cerny_milena","lastname":"Cerny"},{"id":"fung_alice_w","lastname":"Fung"},{"id":"costa_eduardo_a","lastname":"Costa"},{"id":"corwin_michael_t","lastname":"Corwin"},{"id":"mcgahan_john_p","lastname":"McGahan"},{"id":"kalb_bobby","lastname":"Kalb"},{"id":"elsayes_khaled_m","lastname":"Elsayes"},{"id":"surabhi_venkateswar_r","lastname":"Surabhi"},{"id":"blair_katherine","lastname":"Blair"},{"id":"marks_robert_m","lastname":"Marks"},{"id":"horvat_natally","lastname":"Horvat"},{"id":"best_shaun","lastname":"Best"},{"id":"ash_ryan","lastname":"Ash"},{"id":"ganesan_karthik","lastname":"Ganesan"},{"id":"kagay_christopher_r","lastname":"Kagay"},{"id":"kambadakone_avinash","lastname":"Kambadakone"},{"id":"wang_jin","lastname":"Wang"},{"id":"cruite_irene","lastname":"Cruite"},{"id":"bijan_bijan","lastname":"Bijan"},{"id":"goodwin_mark","lastname":"Goodwin"},{"id":"moura_cunha_guilherme","lastname":"Moura Cunha"},{"id":"tamayo_murillo_dorathy","lastname":"Tamayo-Murillo"},{"id":"fowler_kathryn_j","lastname":"Fowler"},{"id":"sirlin_claude_b","lastname":"Sirlin"}]}

A multicenter assessment of interreader reliability of LI-RADS version 2018 for MRI and CT

Fiche du document

Sujets proches En

Citer ce document

Métriques

Partage / Export

Résumé 0

Par les mêmes auteurs

Sur les mêmes sujets

Exporter en