Outcomes and potential impact of a virtual hands-on training program on MRI staging confidence and performance in rectal cancer

Objectives: To explore the potential impact of a dedicated virtual training course on MRI staging confidence and performance in rectal cancer. // Methods: Forty-two radiologists completed a stepwise virtual training course on rectal cancer MRI staging composed of a pre-course (baseline) test with 7 test cases (5 staging, 2 restaging), a 1-day online workshop, 1 month of individual case readings (n = 70 cases with online feedback), a live online feedback session supervised by two expert faculty members, and a post-course test. The ESGAR structured reporting templates for (re)staging were used throughout the course. Results of the pre-course and post-course test were compared in terms of group interobserver agreement (Krippendorf’s alpha), staging confidence (perceived staging difficulty), and diagnostic accuracy (using an expert reference standard). // Results: Though results were largely not statistically significant, the majority of staging variables showed a mild increase in diagnostic accuracy after the course, ranging between + 2% and + 17%. A similar trend was observed for IOA which improved for nearly all variables when comparing the pre- and post-course. There was a significant decrease in the perceived difficulty level (p = 0.03), indicating an improved diagnostic confidence after completion of the course. // Conclusions: Though exploratory in nature, our study results suggest that use of a dedicated virtual training course and web platform has potential to enhance staging performance, confidence, and interobserver agreement to assess rectal cancer on MRI virtual training and could thus be a good alternative (or addition) to in-person training. // Clinical relevance statement: Rectal cancer MRI reporting quality is highly dependent on radiologists’ expertise, stressing the need for dedicated training/teaching. This study shows promising results for a virtual web-based training program, which could be a good alternative (or addition) to in-person training. // Key Points: • Rectal cancer MRI reporting quality is highly dependent on radiologists’ expertise, stressing the need for dedicated training and teaching. • Using a dedicated virtual training course and web-based platform, encouraging first results were achieved to improve staging accuracy, diagnostic confidence, and interobserver agreement. • These exploratory results suggest that virtual training could thus be a good alternative (or addition) to in-person training

Outcomes and potential impact of a virtual hands-on training program on MRI staging confidence and performance in rectal cancer

Objectives: To explore the potential impact of a dedicated virtual training course on MRI staging confidence and performance in rectal cancer. Methods: Forty-two radiologists completed a stepwise virtual training course on rectal cancer MRI staging composed of a pre-course (baseline) test with 7 test cases (5 staging, 2 restaging), a 1-day online workshop, 1 month of individual case readings (n = 70 cases with online feedback), a live online feedback session supervised by two expert faculty members, and a post-course test. The ESGAR structured reporting templates for (re)staging were used throughout the course. Results of the pre-course and post-course test were compared in terms of group interobserver agreement (Krippendorf’s alpha), staging confidence (perceived staging difficulty), and diagnostic accuracy (using an expert reference standard). Results: Though results were largely not statistically significant, the majority of staging variables showed a mild increase in diagnostic accuracy after the course, ranging between + 2% and + 17%. A similar trend was observed for IOA which improved for nearly all variables when comparing the pre- and post-course. There was a significant decrease in the perceived difficulty level (p = 0.03), indicating an improved diagnostic confidence after completion of the course. Conclusions: Though exploratory in nature, our study results suggest that use of a dedicated virtual training course and web platform has potential to enhance staging performance, confidence, and interobserver agreement to assess rectal cancer on MRI virtual training and could thus be a good alternative (or addition) to in-person training. Clinical relevance statement: Rectal cancer MRI reporting quality is highly dependent on radiologists’ expertise, stressing the need for dedicated training/teaching. This study shows promising results for a virtual web-based training program, which could be a good alternative (or addition) to in-person training. Key Points: • Rectal cancer MRI reporting quality is highly dependent on radiologists’ expertise, stressing the need for dedicated training and teaching. • Using a dedicated virtual training course and web-based platform, encouraging first results were achieved to improve staging accuracy, diagnostic confidence, and interobserver agreement. • These exploratory results suggest that virtual training could thus be a good alternative (or addition) to in-person training

Comparison of MRI response evaluation methods in rectal cancer: a multicentre and multireader validation study

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

Predicting response to chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer via visual morphologic assessment and staging on baseline MRI:a multicenter and multireader study

Purpose Pre-treatment knowledge of the anticipated response of rectal tumors to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) could help to further optimize the treatment. Van Griethuysen et al. proposed a visual 5-point confidence score to predict the likelihood of response on baseline MRI. Aim was to evaluate this score in a multicenter and multireader study setting and compare it to two simplified (4-point and 2-point) adaptations in terms of diagnostic performance, interobserver agreement (IOA), and reader preference. Methods Twenty-two radiologists from 14 countries (5 MRI-experts,17 general/abdominal radiologists) retrospectively reviewed 90 baseline MRIs to estimate if patients would likely achieve a (near-)complete response (nCR); first using the 5-point score by van Griethuysen (1=highly unlikely to 5=highly likely to achieve nCR), second using a 4-point adaptation (with 1-point each for high-risk T-stage, obvious mesorectal fascia invasion, nodal involvement, and extramural vascular invasion), and third using a 2-point score (unlikely/likely to achieve nCR). Diagnostic performance was calculated using ROC curves and IOA using Krippendorf’s alpha (α). Results Areas under the ROC curve to predict the likelihood of a nCR were similar for the three methods (0.71–0.74). IOA was higher for the 5- and 4-point scores (α=0.55 and 0.57 versus 0.46 for the 2-point score) with best results for the MRIexperts (α=0.64-0.65). Most readers (55%) favored the 4-point score

Outcomes and potential impact of a virtual hands-on training program on MRI staging confidence and performance in rectal cancer

Objectives: To explore the potential impact of a dedicated virtual training course on MRI staging confidence and performance in rectal cancer. Methods: Forty-two radiologists completed a stepwise virtual training course on rectal cancer MRI staging composed of a pre-course (baseline) test with 7 test cases (5 staging, 2 restaging), a 1-day online workshop, 1 month of individual case readings (n = 70 cases with online feedback), a live online feedback session supervised by two expert faculty members, and a post-course test. The ESGAR structured reporting templates for (re)staging were used throughout the course. Results of the pre-course and post-course test were compared in terms of group interobserver agreement (Krippendorf’s alpha), staging confidence (perceived staging difficulty), and diagnostic accuracy (using an expert reference standard). Results: Though results were largely not statistically significant, the majority of staging variables showed a mild increase in diagnostic accuracy after the course, ranging between + 2% and + 17%. A similar trend was observed for IOA which improved for nearly all variables when comparing the pre- and post-course. There was a significant decrease in the perceived difficulty level (p = 0.03), indicating an improved diagnostic confidence after completion of the course. Conclusions: Though exploratory in nature, our study results suggest that use of a dedicated virtual training course and web platform has potential to enhance staging performance, confidence, and interobserver agreement to assess rectal cancer on MRI virtual training and could thus be a good alternative (or addition) to in-person training. Clinical relevance statement: Rectal cancer MRI reporting quality is highly dependent on radiologists’ expertise, stressing the need for dedicated training/teaching. This study shows promising results for a virtual web-based training program, which could be a good alternative (or addition) to in-person training. Key Points: • Rectal cancer MRI reporting quality is highly dependent on radiologists’ expertise, stressing the need for dedicated training and teaching. • Using a dedicated virtual training course and web-based platform, encouraging first results were achieved to improve staging accuracy, diagnostic confidence, and interobserver agreement. • These exploratory results suggest that virtual training could thus be a good alternative (or addition) to in-person training