Background: Early diagnosis of metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC) is vital to expedite therapy and prevent paralysis. Staging CT is performed routinely in cancer patients and presents an opportunity for earlier diagnosis. Methods: This retrospective study included 123 CT scans from 101 patients who underwent spine MRI within 30 days, excluding 549 CT scans from 216 patients due to CT performed post-MRI, non-contrast CT, or a gap greater than 30 days between modalities. Reference standard MESCC gradings on CT were provided in consensus via two spine radiologists (11 and 7 years of experience) analyzing the MRI scans. CT scans were labeled using the original reports and by three radiologists (3, 13, and 14 years of experience) using dedicated CT windowing. Results: For normal/none versus low/high-grade MESCC per CT scan, all radiologists demonstrated almost perfect agreement with kappa values ranging from 0.866 (95% CI 0.787–0.945) to 0.947 (95% CI 0.899–0.995), compared to slight agreement for the reports (kappa = 0.095, 95%CI −0.098–0.287). Radiologists also showed high sensitivities ranging from 91.51 (95% CI 84.49–96.04) to 98.11 (95% CI 93.35–99.77), compared to 44.34 (95% CI 34.69–54.31) for the reports. Conclusion: Dedicated radiologist review for MESCC on CT showed high interobserver agreement and sensitivity compared to the current standard of care.

No abstract

IntroductionMetastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC) is a disastrous complication of advanced malignancy. A deep learning (DL) algorithm for MSCC classification on CT could expedite timely diagnosis. In this study, we externally test a DL algorithm for MSCC classification on CT and compare with radiologist assessment.MethodsRetrospective collection of CT and corresponding MRI from patients with suspected MSCC was conducted from September 2007 to September 2020. Exclusion criteria were scans with instrumentation, no intravenous contrast, motion artefacts and non-thoracic coverage. Internal CT dataset split was 84% for training/validation and 16% for testing. An external test set was also utilised. Internal training/validation sets were labelled by radiologists with spine imaging specialization (6 and 11-years post-board certification) and were used to further develop a DL algorithm for MSCC classification. The spine imaging specialist (11-years expertise) labelled the test sets (reference standard). For evaluation of DL algorithm performance, internal and external test data were independently reviewed by four radiologists: two spine specialists (Rad1 and Rad2, 7 and 5-years post-board certification, respectively) and two oncological imaging specialists (Rad3 and Rad4, 3 and 5-years post-board certification, respectively). DL model performance was also compared against the CT report issued by the radiologist in a real clinical setting. Inter-rater agreement (Gwet’s kappa) and sensitivity/specificity/AUCs were calculated.ResultsOverall, 420 CT scans were evaluated (225 patients, mean age=60 ± 11.9[SD]); 354(84%) CTs for training/validation and 66(16%) CTs for internal testing. The DL algorithm showed high inter-rater agreement for three-class MSCC grading with kappas of 0.872 (p<0.001) and 0.844 (p<0.001) on internal and external testing, respectively. On internal testing DL algorithm inter-rater agreement (κ=0.872) was superior to Rad 2 (κ=0.795) and Rad 3 (κ=0.724) (both p<0.001). DL algorithm kappa of 0.844 on external testing was superior to Rad 3 (κ=0.721) (p<0.001). CT report classification of high-grade MSCC disease was poor with only slight inter-rater agreement (κ=0.027) and low sensitivity (44.0), relative to the DL algorithm with almost-perfect inter-rater agreement (κ=0.813) and high sensitivity (94.0) (p<0.001).ConclusionDeep learning algorithm for metastatic spinal cord compression on CT showed superior performance to the CT report issued by experienced radiologists and could aid earlier diagnosis.