Inter- and Intra-Observer Variability and the Effect of Experience in Cine-MRI for Adhesion Detection

Cine-MRI for adhesion detection is a promising novel modality that can help the large group of patients developing pain after abdominal surgery. Few studies into its diagnostic accuracy are available, and none address observer variability. This retrospective study explores the inter- and intra-observer variability, diagnostic accuracy, and the effect of experience. A total of 15 observers with a variety of experience reviewed 61 sagittal cine-MRI slices, placing box annotations with a confidence score at locations suspect for adhesions. Five observers reviewed the slices again one year later. Inter- and intra-observer variability are quantified using Fleiss’ (inter) and Cohen’s (intra) κ and percentage agreement. Diagnostic accuracy is quantified with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis based on a consensus standard. Inter-observer Fleiss’ κ values range from 0.04 to 0.34, showing poor to fair agreement. High general and cine-MRI experience led to significantly (p &lt; 0.001) better agreement among observers. The intra-observer results show Cohen’s κ values between 0.37 and 0.53 for all observers, except one with a low κ of −0.11. Group AUC scores lie between 0.66 and 0.72, with individual observers reaching 0.78. This study confirms that cine-MRI can diagnose adhesions, with respect to a radiologist consensus panel and shows that experience improves reading cine-MRI. Observers without specific experience adapt to this modality quickly after a short online tutorial. Observer agreement is fair at best and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) scores leave room for improvement. Consistently interpreting this novel modality needs further research, for instance, by developing reporting guidelines or artificial intelligence-based methods.</p

MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis

Background Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without targeted biopsy, is an alternative to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy for prostate-cancer detection in men with a raised prostate-specific antigen level who have not undergone biopsy. However, comparative evidence is limited. Methods In a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, we assigned men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously to undergo MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, or standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. Men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group underwent a targeted biopsy (without standard biopsy cores) if the MRI was suggestive of prostate cancer; men whose MRI results were not suggestive of prostate cancer were not offered biopsy. Standard biopsy was a 10-to-12-core, transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. The primary outcome was the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically significant cancer. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer. Results A total of 500 men underwent randomization. In the MRI-targeted biopsy group, 71 of 252 men (28%) had MRI results that were not suggestive of prostate cancer, so they did not undergo biopsy. Clinically significant cancer was detected in 95 men (38%) in the MRI-targeted biopsy group, as compared with 64 of 248 (26%) in the standard-biopsy group (adjusted difference, 12 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4 to 20; P=0.005). MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, was noninferior to standard biopsy, and the 95% confidence interval indicated the superiority of this strategy over standard biopsy. Fewer men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group than in the standard-biopsy group received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer (adjusted difference, -13 percentage points; 95% CI, -19 to -7; P&lt;0.001). Conclusions The use of risk assessment with MRI before biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy was superior to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in men at clinical risk for prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and the European Association of Urology Research Foundation; PRECISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02380027 .)

Inter- and Intra-Observer Variability and the Effect of Experience in Cine-MRI for Adhesion Detection

Cine-MRI for adhesion detection is a promising novel modality that can help the large group of patients developing pain after abdominal surgery. Few studies into its diagnostic accuracy are available, and none address observer variability. This retrospective study explores the inter- and intra-observer variability, diagnostic accuracy, and the effect of experience. A total of 15 observers with a variety of experience reviewed 61 sagittal cine-MRI slices, placing box annotations with a confidence score at locations suspect for adhesions. Five observers reviewed the slices again one year later. Inter- and intra-observer variability are quantified using Fleiss’ (inter) and Cohen’s (intra) κ and percentage agreement. Diagnostic accuracy is quantified with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis based on a consensus standard. Inter-observer Fleiss’ κ values range from 0.04 to 0.34, showing poor to fair agreement. High general and cine-MRI experience led to significantly (p < 0.001) better agreement among observers. The intra-observer results show Cohen’s κ values between 0.37 and 0.53 for all observers, except one with a low κ of −0.11. Group AUC scores lie between 0.66 and 0.72, with individual observers reaching 0.78. This study confirms that cine-MRI can diagnose adhesions, with respect to a radiologist consensus panel and shows that experience improves reading cine-MRI. Observers without specific experience adapt to this modality quickly after a short online tutorial. Observer agreement is fair at best and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) scores leave room for improvement. Consistently interpreting this novel modality needs further research, for instance, by developing reporting guidelines or artificial intelligence-based methods

Abdominal wall hernia is a frequent complication of polycystic liver disease and associated with hepatomegaly

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Polycystic liver disease (PLD) is related to hepatomegaly which causes an increased mechanical pressure on the abdominal wall. This may lead to abdominal wall herniation (AWH). We set out to establish the prevalence of AWH in PLD and explore risk factors. METHODS: In this cross-sectional cohort study, we assessed the presence of AWHs from PLD patients with at least 1 abdominal computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scan. AWH presence on imaging was independently evaluated by two researchers. Data on potential risk factors were extracted from clinical files. RESULTS: We included 484 patients of which 40.1% (n = 194) had an AWH. We found a clear predominance of umbilical hernias (25.8%, n = 125) while multiple hernias were present in 6.2% (n = 30). Using multivariate analysis, male sex (odds ratio [OR] 2.727 p < .001), abdominal surgery (OR 2.575, p < .001) and disease severity according to the Gigot classification (Type 3 OR 2.853, p < .001) were identified as risk factors. Height-adjusted total liver volume was an independent PLD-specific risk factor in the subgroup of patients with known total liver volume (OR 1.363, p = .001). Patients with multiple hernias were older (62.1 vs. 55.1, p = .001) and more frequently male (22.0% vs. 50.0%, p = .001). CONCLUSION: AWHs occur frequently in PLD with a predominance of umbilical hernias. Hepatomegaly is a clear disease-specific risk factor

MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis

Copyright © 2018 Massachusetts Medical Society. BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without targeted biopsy, is an alternative to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy for prostate-cancer detection in men with a raised prostate-specific antigen level who have not undergone biopsy. However, comparative evidence is limited. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, we assigned men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously to undergo MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, or standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. Men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group underwent a targeted biopsy (without standard biopsy cores) if the MRI was suggestive of prostate cancer; men whose MRI results were not suggestive of prostate cancer were not offered biopsy. Standard biopsy was a 10-to-12-core, transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. The primary outcome was the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically significant cancer. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer. RESULTS: A total of 500 men underwent randomization. In the MRI-targeted biopsy group, 71 of 252 men (28%) had MRI results that were not suggestive of prostate cancer, so they did not undergo biopsy. Clinically significant cancer was detected in 95 men (38%) in the MRI-targeted biopsy group, as compared with 64 of 248 (26%) in the standard-biopsy group (adjusted difference, 12 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4 to 20; P = 0.005). MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, was noninferior to standard biopsy, and the 95% confidence interval indicated the superiority of this strategy over standard biopsy. Fewer men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group than in the standard-biopsy group received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer (adjusted difference, -13 percentage points; 95% CI, -19 to -7; P\u3c0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of risk assessment with MRI before biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy was superior to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in men at clinical risk for prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and the European Association of Urology Research Foundation; PRECISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02380027.

Artificial intelligence and radiologists in prostate cancer detection on MRI (PI-CAI): an international, paired, non-inferiority, confirmatory study

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) systems can potentially aid the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer by alleviating the increasing workload, preventing overdiagnosis, and reducing the dependence on experienced radiologists. We aimed to investigate the performance of AI systems at detecting clinically significant prostate cancer on MRI in comparison with radiologists using the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS 2.1) and the standard of care in multidisciplinary routine practice at scale. Methods In this international, paired, non -inferiority, confirmatory study, we trained and externally validated an AI system (developed within an international consortium) for detecting Gleason grade group 2 or greater cancers using a retrospective cohort of 10 207 MRI examinations from 9129 patients. Of these examinations, 9207 cases from three centres (11 sites) based in the Netherlands were used for training and tuning, and 1000 cases from four centres (12 sites) based in the Netherlands and Norway were used for testing. In parallel, we facilitated a multireader, multicase observer study with 62 radiologists (45 centres in 20 countries; median 7 [IQR 5-10] years of experience in reading prostate MRI) using PI-RADS (2.1) on 400 paired MRI examinations from the testing cohort. Primary endpoints were the sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of the AI system in comparison with that of all readers using PI-RADS (2.1) and in comparison with that of the historical radiology readings made during multidisciplinary routine practice (ie, the standard of care with the aid of patient history and peer consultation). Histopathology and at least 3 years (median 5 [IQR 4-6] years) of follow-up were used to establish the reference standard. The statistical analysis plan was prespecified with a primary hypothesis of noninferiority (considering a margin of 005) and a secondary hypothesis of superiority towards the AI system, if noninferiority was confirmed. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05489341. Findings Of the 10 207 examinations included from Jan 1, 2012, through Dec 31, 2021, 2440 cases had histologically confirmed Gleason grade group 2 or greater prostate cancer. In the subset of 400 testing cases in which the AI system was compared with the radiologists participating in the reader study, the AI system showed a statistically superior and non-inferior AUROC of 091 (95% CI 087-094; p&lt;00001), in comparison to the pool of 62 radiologists with an AUROC of 086 (083-089), with a lower boundary of the two-sided 95% Wald CI for the difference in AUROC of 002. At the mean PI-RADS 3 or greater operating point of all readers, the AI system detected 6 8% more cases with Gleason grade group 2 or greater cancers at the same specificity (57 7%, 95% CI 516-633), or 50 4% fewer falsepositive results and 20 0% fewer cases with Gleason grade group 1 cancers at the same sensitivity (89 4%, 95% CI 853-929).In all 1000 testing cases where the AI system was compared with the radiology readings made during multidisciplinary practice, non -inferiority was not confirmed, as the AI system showed lower specificity (689% [95% CI 653-724] vs 69 0% [65 5-72 5]) at the same sensitivity (961%, 940-982) as the PI-RADS 3 or greater operating point. The lower boundary of the two-sided 95% Wald CI for the difference in specificity (-0 04) was greater than the non -inferiority margin (-005) and a p value below the significance threshold was reached (p&lt;0 001). Interpretation An AI system was superior to radiologists using PI-RADS (2.1), on average, at detecting clinically significant prostate cancer and comparable to the standard of care. Such a system shows the potential to be a supportive tool within a primary diagnostic setting, with several associated benefits for patients and radiologists. Prospective validation is needed to test clinical applicability of this system