Interpretation of Complete Tumor Response on MRI Following Chemoradiotherapy of Rectal Cancer:Inter-Reader Agreement and Associated Factors in Multi-Center Clinical Practice
- Author:
Hae Young KIM
1
;
Seung Hyun CHO
;
Jong Keon JANG
;
Bohyun KIM
;
Chul-min LEE
;
Joon Seok LIM
;
Sung Kyoung MOON
;
Soon Nam OH
;
Nieun SEO
;
Seong Ho PARK
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- From:Korean Journal of Radiology 2024;25(4):351-362
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:EN
-
Abstract:
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 mrCRoverall. 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 mrCRoverall 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 x 9 readers]) and mostly (33/36) changed mrCR T2W to non-mrCRoverall. The kappa values for mrTRG, mrCR T2W, and mrCRoverall 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 interreader agreement for assessing mrCRoverall (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.
