Comparison of MRI response evaluation methods in rectal cancer: a multicentre and multireader validation study - Archive ouverte HAL
Article Dans Une Revue European Radiology Année : 2022

Comparison of MRI response evaluation methods in rectal cancer: a multicentre and multireader validation study

Doenja Lambregts
Frans Bakers
  • Fonction : Auteur
Perla Barros
  • Fonction : Auteur
Ferdinand Bauer
  • Fonction : Auteur
Shira de Bie
  • Fonction : Auteur
Stuart Ballantyne
  • Fonction : Auteur
Joanna Brayner Dutra
  • Fonction : Auteur
Laura Buskov
  • Fonction : Auteur
Nino Bogveradze
  • Fonction : Auteur
Gerlof Bosma
  • Fonction : Auteur
Vincent Cappendijk
  • Fonction : Auteur
Francesca Castagnoli
  • Fonction : Auteur
Sotiriadis Charalampos
  • Fonction : Auteur
Andrea Delli Pizzi
  • Fonction : Auteur
Michael Digby
  • Fonction : Auteur
Remy Geenen
  • Fonction : Auteur
Joost van Griethuysen
  • Fonction : Auteur
Julie Lafrance
  • Fonction : Auteur
Vandana Mahajan
  • Fonction : Auteur
Sonaz Malekzadeh
  • Fonction : Auteur
Peter Neijenhuis
  • Fonction : Auteur
Gerald Peterson
  • Fonction : Auteur
Indra Pieters
  • Fonction : Auteur
Niels Schurink
  • Fonction : Auteur
Ruth Smit
  • Fonction : Auteur
Cornelis Veeken
  • Fonction : Auteur
Roy Vliegen
  • Fonction : Auteur
Andrew Wray
  • Fonction : Auteur
Abdel-Rauf Zeina
  • Fonction : Auteur

Résumé

Objectives: To compare four previously published methods for rectal tumor response evaluation after chemoradiotherapy on MRI. Methods: Twenty-two radiologists (5 rectal MRI experts, 17 general/abdominal radiologists) retrospectively reviewed the post-chemoradiotherapy MRIs of 90 patients, scanned at 10 centers (with non-standardized protocols). They applied four response methods; two based on T2W-MRI only (MRI tumor regression grade (mrTRG); split-scar sign), and two based on T2W-MRI+DWI (modified-mrTRG; DWI-patterns). Image quality was graded using a 0-6-point score (including slice thickness and in-plane resolution; sequence angulation; DWI b-values, signal-to-noise, and artefacts); scores < 4 were classified below average. Mixed model linear regression was used to calculate average sensitivity/specificity/accuracy to predict a complete response (versus residual tumor) and assess the impact of reader experience and image quality. Group interobserver agreement (IOA) was calculated using Krippendorff's alpha. Readers were asked to indicate their preferred scoring method(s). Results: Average sensitivity/specificity/accuracy was 57%/64%/62% (mrTRG), 36%/79%/66% (split-scar), 40%/79%/67% (modified-mrTRG), and 37%/82%/68% (DWI-patterns); mrTRG showed higher sensitivity but lower specificity and accuracy (p < 0.001) compared to the other methods. IOA was lower for the split scar method (0.18 vs. 0.39-0.43). Higher reader experience had a significant positive effect on diagnostic performance and IOA (except for the split scar sign); below-average imaging quality had a significant negative effect on diagnostic performance. DWI pattern was selected as the preferred method by 73% of readers. Conclusions: Methods incorporating DWI showed the most favorable results when combining diagnostic performance, IOA, and reader preference. Reader experience and image quality clearly impacted diagnostic performance emphasizing the need for state-of-the-art imaging and dedicated radiologist training.

Domaines

Cancer

Dates et versions

hal-04588932 , version 1 (27-05-2024)

Identifiants

Citer

Najim El Khababi, Regina Beets-Tan, Renaud Tissier, Max Lahaye, Monique Maas, et al.. Comparison of MRI response evaluation methods in rectal cancer: a multicentre and multireader validation study. European Radiology, 2022, 33 (6), pp.4367-4377. ⟨10.1007/s00330-022-09342-w⟩. ⟨hal-04588932⟩
15 Consultations
0 Téléchargements

Altmetric

Partager

More