umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Radiological assessment of local resectability status in patients with pancreatic cancer: Interreader agreement and reader performance in two different classification systems
Show others and affiliations
2018 (English)In: European Journal of Radiology, ISSN 0720-048X, E-ISSN 1872-7727, Vol. 106, p. 69-76Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objectives: To assess the interreader agreement and reader performance in the evaluation of patients with pancreatic cancer (PC) in two classification systems of local resectability status prior to initiation of therapy, namely the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and Karolinska classification system (KCS).

Methods: In this ethics review board-approved retrospective study, six radiologists independently evaluated pancreatic CT-examinations of 30 patients randomly selected from a tertiary referral centre's multidisciplinary tumour board database. Based on well-defined criteria of tumour-vessel relationship, each patient was assigned to one of three NCCN and six KCS categories. We assessed the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and compared the percentages of correct tumour classification of the six readers in both systems (Chi-square test; a P-value < 0.05 was considered significant). The standard of reference was a consensus evaluation of CT-examinations by three readers not involved in the image analysis.

Results: The ICC for NCCN and KCS was 0.82 and 0.84, respectively (very strong agreement). The percentages of correct tumour classification at NCCN and KCS were 53-83% and 30-57%, respectively, with no statistically significant differences in the overall reader comparison per classification system. In pair-wise comparison between readers for NCCN/KCS, there were statistically significant differences between reader 5 vs. readers 4 (P = 0.012) and 3 (P = 0.045)/ reader 5 vs. reader 4 (P = 0.037).

Conclusion: Interreader agreement in both PC classification systems is very strong. NCCN may be advantageous in terms of reader performance compared to KCS.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2018. Vol. 106, p. 69-76
Keywords [en]
Pancreatic ductal carcinoma, Classification, Blood vessels, Diagnostic imaging, Surgery
National Category
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-151532DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.06.014ISI: 000442592500011PubMedID: 30150053OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-151532DiVA, id: diva2:1247389
Available from: 2018-09-12 Created: 2018-09-12 Last updated: 2018-09-12Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed
By organisation
Diagnostic Radiology
In the same journal
European Journal of Radiology
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 21 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf