TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of MRI response evaluation methods in rectal cancer
T2 - a multicentre and multireader validation study
AU - el Khababi, Najim
AU - Beets-Tan, Regina G. H.
AU - Tissier, Renaud
AU - Lahaye, Max J.
AU - Maas, Monique
AU - Curvo-Semedo, Luís
AU - Dresen, Raphaëla C.
AU - Nougaret, Stephanie
AU - Beets, Geerard L.
AU - Lambregts, Doenja M. J.
AU - on behalf of the rectal MRI study group
AU - Bakers, Frans C. H.
AU - Barros, Perla
AU - Bauer, Ferdinand
AU - de Bie, Shira H.
AU - Ballantyne, Stuart
AU - Dutra, Joanna Brayner
AU - Buskov, Laura
AU - Bogveradze, Nino
AU - Bosma, Gerlof P. T.
AU - Cappendijk, Vincent C.
AU - Castagnoli, Francesca
AU - Charalampos, Sotiriadis
AU - Pizzi, Andrea Delli
AU - Digby, Michael
AU - Geenen, Remy W. F.
AU - van Griethuysen, Joost J. M.
AU - Lafrance, Julie
AU - Mahajan, Vandana
AU - Malekzadeh, Sonaz
AU - Neijenhuis, Peter A.
AU - Peterson, Gerald M.
AU - Pieters, Indra
AU - Schurink, Niels W.
AU - Smit, Ruth
AU - Veeken, Cornelis J.
AU - Vliegen, Roy F. A.
AU - Wray, Andrew
AU - Zeina, Abdel-Rauf
N1 - Funding Information: Other authors in the study group: Frans C. H. Bakers1; Perla Barros2; Ferdinand Bauer3; Shira H. de Bie4; Stuart Ballantyne5; Joanna Brayner Dutra6,7; Laura Buskov8; Nino Bogveradze9,10,11; Gerlof P. T. Bosma12; Vincent C. Cappendijk13; Francesca Castagnoli14; Sotiriadis Charalampos15; Andrea Delli Pizzi26; Michael Digby17; Remy W. F. Geenen18; Joost J. M. van Griethuysen9,19; Julie Lafrance20; Vandana Mahajan21; Sonaz Malekzadeh22; Peter A. Neijenhuis23; Gerald M. Peterson24; Indra Pieters25; Niels W. Schurink9,10; Ruth Smit26; Cornelis J. Veeken27; Roy F. A. Vliegen28; Andrew Wray29; Abdel-Rauf Zeina301Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands2Department of Radiology, Instituto Oncológico Fundación Arturo López Pérez, Santiago, Chile3.Radiologie Zentrum, Kaufbeuren , Germany4Department of Radiology, Deventer Ziekenhuis, The Netherlands5Department of Radiology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom6Department of Radiology, Real Hospital Portugues (RHP), Pernambuco, Brazil7Department of Radiology, Instituto de Medicina Integral Professor Fernando Figueira (IMIP), Recife, Brazil.8.Department of Radiology, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark9Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands10GROW School for Oncology & Developmental Biology, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands11Department of Radiology, American Hospital Tbilisi, Tbilisi, Georgia12Department of Radiologie Elisabeth Tweesteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands13Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, ‘s Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands14Department of Radiology, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy15Department of Radiology, Hôpital Riviera Chablais, Rennaz, Switzerland16Department of Innovative Technologies in Medicine & Dentistry, Gabriele d’Annunzio University of Chieti, Chieti, Italy17Department of Radiology, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, United Kingdom.18Department of Radiology, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, The Netherlands19Department of Radiology, Gelre Hospital, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands20Department of Radiology, Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital, Montreal, Canada21Department of Radiology, Apollo Cancer Hospital, Chennai, India22Department of Radiology, Sion Hospital, Sion, Switzerland23Department of Surgery, Alrijne Hospital, Leiderdorp, The Netherlands24Department of Radiology, Spaarne Gasthuis, Haarlem, The Netherlands25Department of Radiology, Telemedicine Clinic, United Kingdom26Department of Radiology, Amsterdams UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands27Department of Radiology, IJsselland Hospital, Capelle aan den IJssel, The Netherlands28Department of Radiology, Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, The Netherlands29Department of Radiology, Ulster Hospital, Belfast, United Kingdom30.Department of Radiology, Hillel Yaffe Medical Center, Hadera, Israel Publisher Copyright: © 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.
PY - 2023/6/1
Y1 - 2023/6/1
N2 - 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. Key Points: • In a multireader study comparing 4 MRI methods for rectal tumor response evaluation, those incorporating DWI showed the best results when combining diagnostic performance, IOA, and reader preference. • The most preferred method (by 73% of readers) was the “DWI patterns” approach with an accuracy of 68%, high specificity of 82%, and group IOA of 0.43. • Reader experience level and MRI quality had an evident effect on diagnostic performance and IOA.
AB - 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. Key Points: • In a multireader study comparing 4 MRI methods for rectal tumor response evaluation, those incorporating DWI showed the best results when combining diagnostic performance, IOA, and reader preference. • The most preferred method (by 73% of readers) was the “DWI patterns” approach with an accuracy of 68%, high specificity of 82%, and group IOA of 0.43. • Reader experience level and MRI quality had an evident effect on diagnostic performance and IOA.
KW - Chemoradiotherapy
KW - Magnetic resonance imaging
KW - Neoplasm, residual
KW - Rectal neoplasms
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85145200307&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09342-w
DO - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09342-w
M3 - Article
C2 - 36576549
SN - 0938-7994
VL - 33
SP - 4367
EP - 4377
JO - European Radiology
JF - European Radiology
IS - 6
ER -