Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Interobserver agreement of transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in local staging of cervical cancer

K. Pálsdóttir, S. Fridsten, L. Blomqvist, Z. Alagic, D. Fischerova, A. Gaurilcikas, K. Hasselrot, F. Jäderling, AC. Testa, A. Sundin, E. Epstein

. 2021 ; 58 (5) : 773-779. [pub] -

Language English Country Great Britain

Document type Evaluation Study, Journal Article

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate interobserver agreement for the assessment of local tumor extension in women with cervical cancer, among experienced and less experienced observers, using transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: The TVS observers were all gynecologists and consultant ultrasound specialists, six with and seven without previous experience in cervical cancer imaging. The MRI observers were five radiologists experienced in pelvic MRI and four less experienced radiology residents without previous experience in MRI of the pelvis. The less experienced TVS observers and all MRI observers underwent a short basic training session in the assessment of cervical tumor extension, while the experienced TVS observers received only a written directive. All observers were assigned the same images from cervical cancer patients at all stages (n = 60) and performed offline evaluation to answer the following three questions: (1) Is there a visible primary tumor? (2) Does the tumor infiltrate > ⅓ of the cervical stroma? and (3) Is there parametrial invasion? Interobserver agreement within the four groups of observers was assessed using Fleiss kappa (κ) with 95% CI. RESULTS: Experienced and less experienced TVS observers, respectively, had moderate interobserver agreement with respect to tumor detection (κ (95% CI), 0.46 (0.40-0.53) and 0.46 (0.41-0.52)), stromal invasion > ⅓ (κ (95% CI), 0.45 (0.38-0.51) and 0.53 (0.40-0.58)) and parametrial invasion (κ (95% CI), 0.57 (0.51-0.64) and 0.44 (0.39-0.50)). Experienced MRI observers had good interobserver agreement with respect to tumor detection (κ (95% CI), 0.70 (0.62-0.78)), while less experienced MRI observers had moderate agreement (κ (95% CI), 0.51 (0.41-0.62)), and both experienced and less experienced MRI observers, respectively, had good interobserver agreement regarding stromal invasion (κ (95% CI), 0.80 (0.72-0.88) and 0.71 (0.61-0.81)) and parametrial invasion (κ (95% CI), 0.69 (0.61-0.77) and 0.71 (0.61-0.81)). CONCLUSIONS: We found interobserver agreement for the assessment of local tumor extension in patients with cervical cancer to be moderate for TVS and moderate-to-good for MRI. The level of interobserver agreement was associated with experience among TVS observers only for parametrial invasion. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22003375
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20220127150310.0
007      
ta
008      
220113s2021 xxk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1002/uog.23662 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)33915001
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxk
100    1_
$a Pálsdóttir, K $u Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden $u Division of Pelvic Cancer, Theme Cancer, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
245    10
$a Interobserver agreement of transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in local staging of cervical cancer / $c K. Pálsdóttir, S. Fridsten, L. Blomqvist, Z. Alagic, D. Fischerova, A. Gaurilcikas, K. Hasselrot, F. Jäderling, AC. Testa, A. Sundin, E. Epstein
520    9_
$a OBJECTIVE: To evaluate interobserver agreement for the assessment of local tumor extension in women with cervical cancer, among experienced and less experienced observers, using transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: The TVS observers were all gynecologists and consultant ultrasound specialists, six with and seven without previous experience in cervical cancer imaging. The MRI observers were five radiologists experienced in pelvic MRI and four less experienced radiology residents without previous experience in MRI of the pelvis. The less experienced TVS observers and all MRI observers underwent a short basic training session in the assessment of cervical tumor extension, while the experienced TVS observers received only a written directive. All observers were assigned the same images from cervical cancer patients at all stages (n = 60) and performed offline evaluation to answer the following three questions: (1) Is there a visible primary tumor? (2) Does the tumor infiltrate > ⅓ of the cervical stroma? and (3) Is there parametrial invasion? Interobserver agreement within the four groups of observers was assessed using Fleiss kappa (κ) with 95% CI. RESULTS: Experienced and less experienced TVS observers, respectively, had moderate interobserver agreement with respect to tumor detection (κ (95% CI), 0.46 (0.40-0.53) and 0.46 (0.41-0.52)), stromal invasion > ⅓ (κ (95% CI), 0.45 (0.38-0.51) and 0.53 (0.40-0.58)) and parametrial invasion (κ (95% CI), 0.57 (0.51-0.64) and 0.44 (0.39-0.50)). Experienced MRI observers had good interobserver agreement with respect to tumor detection (κ (95% CI), 0.70 (0.62-0.78)), while less experienced MRI observers had moderate agreement (κ (95% CI), 0.51 (0.41-0.62)), and both experienced and less experienced MRI observers, respectively, had good interobserver agreement regarding stromal invasion (κ (95% CI), 0.80 (0.72-0.88) and 0.71 (0.61-0.81)) and parametrial invasion (κ (95% CI), 0.69 (0.61-0.77) and 0.71 (0.61-0.81)). CONCLUSIONS: We found interobserver agreement for the assessment of local tumor extension in patients with cervical cancer to be moderate for TVS and moderate-to-good for MRI. The level of interobserver agreement was associated with experience among TVS observers only for parametrial invasion. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a cervix uteri $x diagnostické zobrazování $7 D002584
650    _2
$a klinické kompetence $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D002983
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a gynekologie $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D006176
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a magnetická rezonanční tomografie $x metody $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D008279
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a staging nádorů $x metody $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D009367
650    _2
$a odchylka pozorovatele $7 D015588
650    _2
$a radiologie $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D011871
650    _2
$a reprodukovatelnost výsledků $7 D015203
650    _2
$a ultrasonografie $x metody $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D014463
650    _2
$a nádory děložního čípku $x diagnostické zobrazování $x patologie $7 D002583
650    _2
$a vagina $x diagnostické zobrazování $7 D014621
655    _2
$a hodnotící studie $7 D023362
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Fridsten, S $u Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden $u Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
700    1_
$a Blomqvist, L $u Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden $u Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
700    1_
$a Alagic, Z $u Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden $u Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
700    1_
$a Fischerova, D $u Gynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Gaurilcikas, A $u Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania
700    1_
$a Hasselrot, K $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden $u Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
700    1_
$a Jäderling, F $u Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden $u Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden $u Department of Radiology, Capio S:t Göran Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
700    1_
$a Testa, A C $u Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy $u Dipartimento Scienze della Vita e Sanità Pubblica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
700    1_
$a Sundin, A $u Department of Surgical Sciences, Section for Radiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden
700    1_
$a Epstein, E $u Department of Clinical Science and Education, Karolinska Institutet and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
773    0_
$w MED00010717 $t Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology $x 1469-0705 $g Roč. 58, č. 5 (2021), s. 773-779
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33915001 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20220113 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20220127150306 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1750979 $s 1154524
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2021 $b 58 $c 5 $d 773-779 $e - $i 1469-0705 $m Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology $n Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol $x MED00010717
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20220113

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...