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

Hong, Cheng William; Chernyak, Victoria; Choi, Jin Young; Lee, Sonia; Potu, Chetan K.; Delgado, Timoteo; Wolfson, Tanya; Gamst, Anthony; Birnbaum, Jason; Kampalath, Rony; Lall, Chandana; Lee, James T; Owen, Joseph W.; Aguirre, Diego A; Mendiratta‐Lala, Mishal; Davenport, Matthew S.; Masch, William R.; Roudenko, Alexandra; Lewis, Sara; Kierans, Andrea S.; Hecht, Elizabeth M.; Zulfiqar, Maria; Brancatelli, Giuseppe; Douek, Michael; Ohliger, Michael A.; Tang, An; Cerny, Milena; Fung, Alice; Costa, Eduardo A; Corwin, Michael T.; McGahan, John P.; Kalb, Bobby; Elsayes, Khaled M.; Surabhi, Venkateswar R.; Blair, Katherine; Marks, Robert M.; Horvat, Natally; Best, Shaun R.; Ash, Ryan; Ganesan, Karthik; Kagay, Christopher R.; Kambadakone, Avinash; Wang, Jin; Cruite, Irene; Bijan, Bijan; Goodwin, Mark; Cunha, Guilherme Moura; Tamayo-Murillo, Dorathy; Fowler, Kathryn J.; Sirlin, Claude B.

doi:10.1148/radiol.222855

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar to how a sample of participants may differ from an overall population, a sample of readers may differ from the overall reader population, and study results may not necessarily reflect the true accuracy of an index test. For a system that is intended to be widely used by a variety of stakeholders such as LI‐RADS, a reasonable question regarding test performance is how a diverse group of readers from a variety of practice settings and different career stages apply the diagnostic test(s) independently; however, this can be challenging 33,34 . Consensus reads should generally be avoided unless consensus reads are reflective of the clinical application of a diagnostic test 35 …”

Section: Imaging Research Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Best Practice for MRI Diagnostic Accuracy Research With Lessons and Examples from the LI‐RADS Individual Participant Data Group

van der Pol,

Costa,

Lam

et al. 2023

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Medical imaging diagnostic test accuracy research is strengthened by adhering to best practices for study design, data collection, data documentation, and study reporting. In this review, key elements of such research are discussed, and specific recommendations provided for optimizing diagnostic accuracy study execution to improve uniformity, minimize common sources of bias and avoid potential pitfalls. Examples are provided regarding study methodology and data collection practices based on insights gained by the liver imaging reporting and data system (LI‐RADS) individual participant data group, who have evaluated raw data from numerous MRI diagnostic accuracy studies for risk of bias and data integrity. The goal of this review is to outline strategies for investigators to improve research practices, and to help reviewers and readers better contextualize a study's findings while understanding its limitations.Level of Evidence5Technical EfficacyStage 3

show abstract

Section: Imaging Research Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Best Practice for MRI Diagnostic Accuracy Research With Lessons and Examples from the LI‐RADS Individual Participant Data Group

van der Pol,

Costa,

Lam

et al. 2023

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For a diagnostic test to be widely adopted in daily clinical practice beyond research settings, consistency among readers in interpretation is critical. Inter-reader variability can be a concern, even for seemingly well-established interpretative imaging tasks, when applied to daily practice outside the research environment [ 9 10 11 ]. This is particularly true for diagnostic tests with limited accuracy, since difficulties associated with their use may exacerbate inter-observer variability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpretation of Complete Tumor Response on MRI Following Chemoradiotherapy of Rectal Cancer: Inter-Reader Agreement and Associated Factors in Multi-Center Clinical Practice

Kim,

Cho,

Jang

et al. 2024

Korean J Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To measure inter-reader agreement and identify associated factors in interpreting complete response (CR) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) following chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for rectal cancer. Materials and Methods This retrospective study involved 10 readers from seven hospitals with experience of 80–10210 cases, and 149 patients who underwent surgery after CRT for rectal cancer. Using MRI-based tumor regression grading (mrTRG) and methods employed in daily practice, the readers independently assessed mrTRG, CR on T2-weighted images (T2WI) denoted as mrCR T2W , and CR on all images including diffusion-weighted images (DWI) denoted as mrCR overall . The readers described their interpretation patterns and how they utilized DWI. Inter-reader agreement was measured using multi-rater kappa, and associated factors were analyzed using multivariable regression. Correlation between sensitivity and specificity of each reader was analyzed using Spearman coefficient. Results The mrCR T2W and mrCR overall rates varied widely among the readers, ranging 18.8%–40.3% and 18.1%–34.9%, respectively. Nine readers used DWI as a supplement sequence, which modified interpretations on T2WI in 2.7% of cases (36/1341 [149 patients × 9 readers]) and mostly (33/36) changed mrCR T2W to non-mrCR overall . The kappa values for mrTRG, mrCR T2W , and mrCR overall were 0.56 (95% confidence interval: 0.49, 0.62), 0.55 (0.52, 0.57), and 0.54 (0.51, 0.57), respectively. No use of rectal gel, larger initial tumor size, and higher initial cT stage exhibited significant association with a higher inter-reader agreement for assessing mrCR overall ( P ≤ 0.042). Strong negative correlations were observed between the sensitivity and specificity of individual readers (coefficient, -0.718 to -0.963; P ≤ 0.019). Conclusion Inter-reader agreement was moderate for assessing CR on post-CRT MRI. Readers’ varying standards on MRI interpretation (i.e., threshold effect), along with the use of rectal gel, initial tumor size, and initial cT stage, were significant factors associated with inter-reader agreement.

show abstract

Exam quality of ultrasound and dynamic contrast-enhanced abbreviated MRI and impact on early-stage HCC detection

Seif El Dahan,

Yokoo,

Mendiratta-Lala

et al. 2024

Abdom Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

Cited by 5 publications

References 34 publications

Best Practice for MRI Diagnostic Accuracy Research With Lessons and Examples from the LI‐RADS Individual Participant Data Group

Best Practice for MRI Diagnostic Accuracy Research With Lessons and Examples from the LI‐RADS Individual Participant Data Group

Interpretation of Complete Tumor Response on MRI Following Chemoradiotherapy of Rectal Cancer: Inter-Reader Agreement and Associated Factors in Multi-Center Clinical Practice

Exam quality of ultrasound and dynamic contrast-enhanced abbreviated MRI and impact on early-stage HCC detection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About