European radiology · 2023
Diagnostic performance of computed tomography features in detecting oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma extranodal extension.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tran Ngoc-Anh, Palotai Miklos, Hanna Glenn J, Schoenfeld Jonathan D, Bay Camden P, Rettig Eleni M, Bunch Paul M, Juliano Amy F, Kelly Hillary R, Suh Chong Hyun, Zander David A, Morales Pinzon Alfredo, Kann Benjamin H, Huang Raymond Y, Haddad Robert I, Guttmann Charles R G, Guenette Jeffrey P
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Accurate pre-treatment imaging determination of extranodal extension (ENE) could facilitate the selection of appropriate initial therapy for HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPV + OPSCC). Small studies have associated 7 CT features with ENE with varied results and agreement. This article seeks to determine the replicable diagnostic performance of these CT features for ENE.
METHODS: Five expert academic head/neck neuroradiologists from 5 institutions evaluate a single academic cancer center cohort of 75 consecutive HPV + OPSCC patients. In a web-based virtual laboratory for imaging research and education, the experts performed training on 7 published CT features associated with ENE and then independently identified the "single most (if any) suspicious" lymph node and presence/absence of each of the features. Inter-rater agreement was assessed using percentage agreement, Gwet's AC1, and Fleiss' kappa. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated for each CT feature based on histologic ENE.
RESULTS: All 5 raters identified the same node in 52 cases (69%). In 15 cases (20%), at least one rater selected a node and at least one rater did not. In 8 cases (11%), all raters selected a node, but at least one rater selected a different node. Percentage agreement and Gwet's AC1 coefficients were > 0.80 for lesion identification, matted/conglomerated nodes, and central necrosis. Fleiss' kappa was always < 0.6. CT sensitivity for histologically confirmed ENE ranged 0.18-0.94, specificity 0.41-0.88, PPV 0.26-0.36, and NPV 0.78-0.96.
CONCLUSIONS: Previously described CT features appear to have poor reproducibility among expert head/neck neuroradiologists and poor predictive value for histologic ENE.
KEY POINTS: • Previously described CT imaging features appear to have poor reproducibility among expert head and neck subspecialized neuroradiologists as well as poor predictive value for histologic ENE. • Although it may still be appropriate to comment on the presence or absence of these CT features in imaging reports, the evidence indicates that caution is warranted when incorporating these features into clinical decision-making regarding the likelihood of ENE.
METHODS: Five expert academic head/neck neuroradiologists from 5 institutions evaluate a single academic cancer center cohort of 75 consecutive HPV + OPSCC patients. In a web-based virtual laboratory for imaging research and education, the experts performed training on 7 published CT features associated with ENE and then independently identified the "single most (if any) suspicious" lymph node and presence/absence of each of the features. Inter-rater agreement was assessed using percentage agreement, Gwet's AC1, and Fleiss' kappa. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated for each CT feature based on histologic ENE.
RESULTS: All 5 raters identified the same node in 52 cases (69%). In 15 cases (20%), at least one rater selected a node and at least one rater did not. In 8 cases (11%), all raters selected a node, but at least one rater selected a different node. Percentage agreement and Gwet's AC1 coefficients were > 0.80 for lesion identification, matted/conglomerated nodes, and central necrosis. Fleiss' kappa was always < 0.6. CT sensitivity for histologically confirmed ENE ranged 0.18-0.94, specificity 0.41-0.88, PPV 0.26-0.36, and NPV 0.78-0.96.
CONCLUSIONS: Previously described CT features appear to have poor reproducibility among expert head/neck neuroradiologists and poor predictive value for histologic ENE.
KEY POINTS: • Previously described CT imaging features appear to have poor reproducibility among expert head and neck subspecialized neuroradiologists as well as poor predictive value for histologic ENE. • Although it may still be appropriate to comment on the presence or absence of these CT features in imaging reports, the evidence indicates that caution is warranted when incorporating these features into clinical decision-making regarding the likelihood of ENE.