Dataset Information

Interobserver agreement of transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in local staging of cervical cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate interobserver agreement for the assessment of local tumor extension in women with cervical cancer, among experienced and less experienced observers, using transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Methods

The TVS observers were all gynecologists and consultant ultrasound specialists, six with and seven without previous experience in cervical cancer imaging. The MRI observers were five radiologists experienced in pelvic MRI and four less experienced radiology residents without previous experience in MRI of the pelvis. The less experienced TVS observers and all MRI observers underwent a short basic training session in the assessment of cervical tumor extension, while the experienced TVS observers received only a written directive. All observers were assigned the same images from cervical cancer patients at all stages (n = 60) and performed offline evaluation to answer the following three questions: (1) Is there a visible primary tumor? (2) Does the tumor infiltrate > ⅓ of the cervical stroma? and (3) Is there parametrial invasion? Interobserver agreement within the four groups of observers was assessed using Fleiss kappa (κ) with 95% CI.

Results

Experienced and less experienced TVS observers, respectively, had moderate interobserver agreement with respect to tumor detection (κ (95% CI), 0.46 (0.40-0.53) and 0.46 (0.41-0.52)), stromal invasion > ⅓ (κ (95% CI), 0.45 (0.38-0.51) and 0.53 (0.40-0.58)) and parametrial invasion (κ (95% CI), 0.57 (0.51-0.64) and 0.44 (0.39-0.50)). Experienced MRI observers had good interobserver agreement with respect to tumor detection (κ (95% CI), 0.70 (0.62-0.78)), while less experienced MRI observers had moderate agreement (κ (95% CI), 0.51 (0.41-0.62)), and both experienced and less experienced MRI observers, respectively, had good interobserver agreement regarding stromal invasion (κ (95% CI), 0.80 (0.72-0.88) and 0.71 (0.61-0.81)) and parametrial invasion (κ (95% CI), 0.69 (0.61-0.77) and 0.71 (0.61-0.81)).

Conclusions

We found interobserver agreement for the assessment of local tumor extension in patients with cervical cancer to be moderate for TVS and moderate-to-good for MRI. The level of interobserver agreement was associated with experience among TVS observers only for parametrial invasion. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

SUBMITTER: Palsdottir K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8597592 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) is recommended by the International Myeloma Working Group for all patients with asymptomatic myeloma and solitary plasmacytoma and by the UK NICE guidance for all patients with suspected myeloma. Some centres unable to offer WB-MRI offer low-dose whole-body CT (WB-CT). There are no studies comparing interobserver agreement and disease detection of contemporary WB-MRI (anatomical imaging and DWI) versus WB-CT. Our primary aim is to compare the interobserver agreement between WB-CT and WB-MRI in the diagnosis of myeloma. METHODS:Consecutive patients with newly diagnosed myeloma imaged with WB-MRI and WB-CT were prospectively reviewed. For each body region and modality, two experienced and two junior radiologists scored disease burden with final scores by consensus. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), median scores, Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Spearman's correlation coefficients were calculated. RESULTS:There was no significant difference in overall observer scores between WB-MRI and WB-CT (p?=?0.87). For experienced observers, interobserver agreement for WB-MRI was superior to WB-CT overall and for each region, without overlap in whole-skeleton confidence intervals (ICC 0.98 versus 0.77, 95%CI 0.96-0.99 versus 0.45-0.91). For inexperienced observers, although there is a trend for a better interobserver score for the whole skeleton on WB-MRI (ICC 0.95, 95%CI 0.72-0.98) than on WB-CT (ICC 0.72, 95%CI 0.34-0.88), the confidence intervals overlap. CONCLUSIONS:WB-MRI offers excellent interobserver agreement which is superior to WB-CT for experienced observers. Although the overall burden was similar across both modalities, patients with lower disease burdens where MRI could be advantageous are not included in this series. KEY POINTS:• Whole-body MRI is recommended by the International Myeloma Working Group for patients with multiple myeloma and solitary plasmacytoma and by the NICE guidance for those with suspected multiple myeloma. • Some centres unable to offer whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) offer low-dose whole-body CT (WB-CT). • This prospective study demonstrates that contemporary WB-MRI (with anatomical sequences and DWI) provides better interobserver agreement in assessing myeloma disease burden for the whole skeleton and across any individual body region in myeloma patients when compared with low-dose whole-body CT.