Inter-reader agreement of LI-RADS treatment response algorithm among three readers with different seniorities for hepatocellular carcinoma after locoregional therapy

被引:0
|
作者
Wang, Yuxin [1 ]
Asayo, Himeko [1 ]
Wang, Wei [2 ]
Xu, Hui [1 ]
Yang, Dawei [1 ]
Xu, Lixue [1 ]
Yang, Siwei [3 ]
Yang, Zhenghan [1 ]
机构
[1] Capital Med Univ, Beijing Friendship Hosp, Dept Radiol, Beijing, Peoples R China
[2] Zhuozhou Hosp, Dept Radiol, Zhuozhou, Hebei, Peoples R China
[3] Capital Med Univ, Beijing Friendship Hosp, Yongan Rd 95, Beijing 100050, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Hepatocellular carcinoma; locoregional therapy; magnetic resonance imaging; LI-RADS; treatment responses; DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCE; SUBTRACTION IMAGES;
D O I
10.1177/02841851241289130
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Background The accurate evaluation of tumor response after locoregional therapy is crucial for adjusting therapeutic strategy and guiding individualized follow-up.Purpose To determine the inter-reader agreement of the LR-TR algorithm for hepatocellular carcinoma treated with locoregional therapy among radiologists with different seniority.Material and Methods A total of 275 treated observations on 249 MRI scans from 99 patients were retrospectively collected. Three readers of different seniorities (senior, intermediate, and junior with 10, 6, and 2 years of experience in hepatic imaging, respectively) analyzed the presence or absence of features (arterial-phase hyperenhancement and washout) and evaluated LR-TR category.Results There were substantial inter-reader agreements for overall LR-TR categorization (kappa = 0.704), LR-TR viable (kappa = 0.715), and LR-TR non-viable (kappa = 0.737), but fair inter-reader agreement for LR-TR equivocal (kappa = 0.231) among three readers. The inter-reader agreement was substantial for arterial-phase hyperenhancement (kappa = 0.725), but moderate for washout (kappa = 0.443) among three readers. The inter-reader agreements between two readers were substantial for overall LR-TR categorization (kappa = 0.734, 0.727, 0.652), LR-TR viable (kappa = 0.719, 0.752, 0.678), and LR-TR non-viable (kappa = 0.758, 0.760, 0.694), which were at the same level as the inter-reader agreements among three readers. In addition, the inter-reader agreements between two readers were substantial for arterial-phase hyperenhancement (kappa = 0.733, 0.766, 0.678), but moderate for washout (kappa = 0.473, 0.422, 0.446), which were at the same level as the inter-reader agreements among three readers.Conclusion LR-TR algorithm demonstrated overall substantial inter-reader agreement among radiologists with different seniority.
引用
收藏
页码:1458 / 1464
页数:7
相关论文
共 30 条
  • [1] Reproducibility of LI-RADS treatment response algorithm for hepatocellular carcinoma after locoregional therapy
    Razek, A. A. K. Abdel
    El-Serougy, L. G.
    Saleh, G. A.
    Shabana, W.
    Abd El-Wahab, R.
    DIAGNOSTIC AND INTERVENTIONAL IMAGING, 2020, 101 (09) : 547 - 553
  • [2] Inter-reader agreement of CEUS LI-RADS among radiologists with different levels of experience
    Li, Wei
    Li, Lv
    Zhuang, Bo-Wen
    Ruan, Si-Min
    Hu, Hang-Tong
    Huang, Yang
    Lin, Man-xia
    Xie, Xiao-Yan
    Kuang, Ming
    Lu, Ming-De
    Chen, Li-Da
    Wang, Wei
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2021, 31 (09) : 6758 - 6767
  • [3] Inter-reader agreement of CEUS LI-RADS among radiologists with different levels of experience
    Wei Li
    Lv Li
    Bo-Wen Zhuang
    Si-Min Ruan
    Hang-Tong Hu
    Yang Huang
    Man-xia Lin
    Xiao-Yan Xie
    Ming Kuang
    Ming-De Lu
    Li-Da Chen
    Wei Wang
    European Radiology, 2021, 31 : 6758 - 6767
  • [4] Locoregional therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma and the new LI-RADS treatment response algorithm
    Ania Kielar
    Kathryn J. Fowler
    Sara Lewis
    Vahid Yaghmai
    Frank H. Miller
    Hooman Yarmohammadi
    Charles Kim
    Victoria Chernyak
    Takeshi Yokoo
    Jeffrey Meyer
    Isabel Newton
    Richard K. Do
    Abdominal Radiology, 2018, 43 : 218 - 230
  • [5] Locoregional therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma and the new LI-RADS treatment response algorithm
    Kielar, Ania
    Fowler, Kathryn J.
    Lewis, Sara
    Yaghmai, Vahid
    Miller, Frank H.
    Yarmohammadi, Hooman
    Kim, Charles
    Chernyak, Victoria
    Yokoo, Takeshi
    Meyer, Jeffrey
    Newton, Isabel
    Do, Richard K.
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2018, 43 (01) : 218 - 230
  • [6] Does Training in LI-RADS Version 2018 Improve Readers' Agreement with the Expert Consensus and Inter-reader Agreement in MRI Interpretation?
    Zhang, Nan
    Xu, Hui
    Ren, A-Hong
    Zhang, Qian
    Yang, Da-Wei
    Ba, Te
    Wang, Zhen-Chang
    Yang, Zheng-Han
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2021, 54 (06) : 1922 - 1934
  • [7] Editorial for "Does Training in LI-RADS Version 2018 Improve Readers' Agreement With the Expert Consensus and Inter-Reader Agreement in MRI Interpretation?"
    Pezzilli, Raffaele
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2021, 54 (06) : 1935 - 1936
  • [8] Incorporation of Ancillary MRI Features Into the LI-RADS Treatment Response Algorithm: Impact on Diagnostic Performance After Locoregional Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
    Kim, Yeun-Yoon
    Kim, Myeong-Jin
    Yoon, Ja Kyung
    Shin, Jaeseung
    Roh, Yun Ho
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2022, 218 (03) : 484 - 493
  • [9] Evaluation of the LI-RADS treatment response algorithm in hepatocellular carcinoma after trans-arterial chemoembolization
    Kierans, Andrea S.
    Najjar, Marc
    Dutruel, Silvina P.
    Gavlin, Alexander
    Chen, Christine
    Lee, Michael J.
    Askin, Gulce
    Halazun, Karim J.
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2021, 80 (80) : 117 - 122
  • [10] Liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) v2018: Reliability and agreement for assessing hepatocellular carcinoma locoregional treatment response
    Abdelrahman, Ahmed S.
    Ekladious, Mena E. Y.
    Badran, Ethar M.
    Madkour, Sherihan S.
    DIAGNOSTIC AND INTERVENTIONAL IMAGING, 2022, 103 (11) : 524 - 534