A Multicenter Assessment of Interreader Reliability of LI-RADS Version 2018 for MRI and CT

Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
Citações na Scopus
3
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2023
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Dimensions
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA (RSNA)
Autores
HONG, Cheng William
CHERNYAK, Victoria
CHOI, Jin-Young
LEE, Sonia
POTU, Chetan
DELGADO, Timoteo
WOLFSON, Tanya
GAMST, Anthony
BIRNBAUM, Jason
KAMPALATH, Rony
Citação
RADIOLOGY, v.307, n.5, article ID e222855, 9p, 2023
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
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 multicenter multireader setting using scrollable images. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study used deidentified clinical multiphase CT and MRI and reports with at least one untreated observation from six institutions and three countries; only qualifying examinations were submitted. Examination dates were October 2017 to 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 version 2018 category was computed as a rescored 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, definitely benign; LR2, probably benign; LR-3, intermediate probability of malignancy; LR-4, probably hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]; LR-5, definitely HCC; LR-M, probably malignant but not HCC specific; and LR-TIV, tumor in vein) was computed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Agreement was also computed for dichotomized malignancy (LR-4, LR-5, LR-M, and LR-TIV), LR-5, and LR-M. Agreement was compared between research-versus-research reads and research-versus-clinical reads. Results: The study population consisted of 484 patients (mean age, 62 years +/- 10 [SD]; 156 women; 93 CT examinations, 391 MRI examinations). ICCs for ordinal LI-RADS, dichotomized malignancy, LR-5, and LR-M were 0.68 (95% CI: 0.61, 0.73), 0.63 (95% CI: 0.55, 0.70), 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, respectively; P =.03) and for dichotomized malignancy (ICC, 0.63 vs 0.53, respectively; P =.005), but not for LR-5 (P =.14) or LR-M (P =.94). Conclusion: There was moderate agreement for LI-RADS version 2018 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.
Palavras-chave
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/59101
Referências
  1. Razek AAKA, 2020, J COMPUT ASSIST TOMO, V44, P118, DOI 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000945
  2. Basha MA, 2017, CLIN RADIOL, V72, DOI 10.1016/j.crad.2017.05.019
  3. Bruix J, 2011, HEPATOLOGY, V53, P1020, DOI 10.1002/hep.24199
  4. Bruno MA, 2015, RADIOGRAPHICS, V35, P1668, DOI 10.1148/rg.2015150023
  5. Busby LP, 2018, RADIOGRAPHICS, V38, P236, DOI 10.1148/rg.2018170107
  6. Cerny M, 2018, RADIOLOGY, V288, P118, DOI 10.1148/radiol.2018171678
  7. Cha DI, 2020, EUR RADIOL, V30, P3723, DOI 10.1007/s00330-020-06753-5
  8. Cha DI, 2017, EUR RADIOL, V27, P4394, DOI 10.1007/s00330-017-4804-1
  9. Chen JB, 2021, ABDOM RADIOL, V46, P1530, DOI 10.1007/s00261-020-02790-2
  10. Chen JB, 2019, AM J ROENTGENOL, V213, P821, DOI 10.2214/AJR.19.21168
  11. Chen NX, 2016, MAGN RESON MED SCI, V15, P49, DOI 10.2463/mrms.2014-0149
  12. Choi SH, 2016, INVEST RADIOL, V51, P483, DOI 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000258
  13. Chung JW, 2020, AM J ROENTGENOL, V214, P72, DOI 10.2214/AJR.18.20797
  14. Elsayes KM, 2019, J HEPATOCELL CARCINO, V6, P49, DOI 10.2147/JHC.S186239
  15. Elsayes KM, 2017, J HEPATOCELL CARCINO, V4, P29, DOI 10.2147/JHC.S125396
  16. Fowler KJ, 2018, RADIOLOGY, V286, P173, DOI 10.1148/radiol.2017170376
  17. HINKLEY DV, 1988, J ROY STAT SOC B MET, V50, P321
  18. Hong CW, 2019, EUR RADIOL, V29, P5073, DOI 10.1007/s00330-019-06058-2
  19. Hwang SH, 2019, ABDOM RADIOL, V44, P3078, DOI 10.1007/s00261-019-02077-1
  20. Kang JH, 2020, J MAGN RESON IMAGING, V52, P795, DOI 10.1002/jmri.27065
  21. Kim YY, 2019, RADIOLOGY, V291, P71, DOI 10.1148/radiol.2019181995
  22. Kim YY, 2018, EUR RADIOL, V28, P2038, DOI 10.1007/s00330-017-5188-y
  23. Koo TK, 2016, J CHIROPR MED, V15, P155, DOI 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
  24. Lee CM, 2021, HEPATOL INT, V15, P676, DOI 10.1007/s12072-021-10190-x
  25. Lee CS, 2013, AM J ROENTGENOL, V201, P611, DOI 10.2214/AJR.12.10375
  26. Lee SM, 2019, RADIOLOGY, V292, P655, DOI 10.1148/radiol.2019182867
  27. Lee S, 2020, LIVER INT, V40, P1488, DOI 10.1111/liv.14424
  28. Lim K, 2020, ABDOM RADIOL, V45, P2430, DOI 10.1007/s00261-020-02421-w
  29. Liu WM, 2018, ACTA RADIOL, V59, P140, DOI 10.1177/0284185117716700
  30. Min JH, 2022, EUR RADIOL, V32, P912, DOI 10.1007/s00330-021-08124-0
  31. Schellhaas B, 2018, EUR RADIOL, V28, P4254, DOI 10.1007/s00330-018-5379-1
  32. Streiner D., 1994, HLTH MEASUREMENT SCA
  33. Tanabe M, 2016, RADIOLOGY, V281, P129, DOI 10.1148/radiol.2016152173
  34. van der Pol CB, 2019, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V156, P976, DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.11.020
  35. Zhang Y, 2021, EUR RADIOL, V31, P7715, DOI 10.1007/s00330-021-07807-y

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/Outros