Clinical colorectal cancer · 2026
Consistency of Radiological Staging in Resectable Mismatch-Repair Proficient Colon Cancer: An Interobserver Agreement Study.
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.
Nasca Vincenzo, Tinè Gabriele, Vaiani Marta, Vigorito Raffaella, Greco Francesca Gabriella, Casale Alessandra, Ramondo Gaetano, Rago Alessandro, Asmundo Luigi, Sgrazzutti Cristiano, Cioni Dania, Francischello Roberto, Neri Emanuele, Calandri Marco, Sciortino Carolina, Sanchez Laura, Ambrosini Margherita, Montroni Isacco, Marmorino Federica, Cremolini Chiara, Bergamo Francesca, Lonardi Sara, Lazzari Luca, Marsoni Silvia, Regge Daniele, Pietrantonio Filippo, Giannini Valentina, Randon Giovanni
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Reproducibility and accuracy of radiological classification with CT imaging is crucial for selecting patients with resectable, nonmetastatic colon cancer (CC) who may benefit from neoadjuvant strategies.
METHODS: We evaluated interobserver agreement among 4 independent radiology equipes in classifying patients with resectable, nonmetastatic, mismatch repair proficient CC with available preoperative CT imaging. Radiology equipes were blinded to clinical and pathological data, and categorized tumors according to FOxTROT and Node-RADS criteria, classifying T (T1/2, T3, T4, including stratification by extramural invasion [EMI]) and N status. The primary endpoint was interobserver agreement (Cohen's κw); secondary endpoints included concordance with pathological staging and diagnostic performance metrics. Bayesian and cross-validation analyses assessed robustness.
RESULTS: Among 109 patients (32.1% pT2, 33.9% pT3, 33.9% pT4; 45.9% pN0/1c, 54.1% pN1-2), overall interobserver agreement indicated inadequate concordance for both cT (κw = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.68) and cN category (κw = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36-0.66). Of 109 patients, 38 (35%) were classified identically for T stage by all 4 Radiology groups, while 74 (68%) showed some disagreement. When considering risk stratification into high risk (cT3 with EMI ≥5 mm or cT4) versus low risk (cT1/cT2 or cT3 with EMI <5 mm) 56 patients (51%) received the same classification all 4 groups, and 95 patients (87%) were classified consistently by at least 3 groups. Overall concordance between radiology and pathological staging was inadequate for both T (κw = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.35-0.57) and N staging (κw = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.07-0.33). The mean sensitivity and specificity of CT scan for pT3/T4 and pT4 were 72%/78% and 33%/93%.
CONCLUSIONS: Identification of high-risk features in resectable CC by CT scan should be implemented to guide patients' selection for neoadjuvant therapies.
METHODS: We evaluated interobserver agreement among 4 independent radiology equipes in classifying patients with resectable, nonmetastatic, mismatch repair proficient CC with available preoperative CT imaging. Radiology equipes were blinded to clinical and pathological data, and categorized tumors according to FOxTROT and Node-RADS criteria, classifying T (T1/2, T3, T4, including stratification by extramural invasion [EMI]) and N status. The primary endpoint was interobserver agreement (Cohen's κw); secondary endpoints included concordance with pathological staging and diagnostic performance metrics. Bayesian and cross-validation analyses assessed robustness.
RESULTS: Among 109 patients (32.1% pT2, 33.9% pT3, 33.9% pT4; 45.9% pN0/1c, 54.1% pN1-2), overall interobserver agreement indicated inadequate concordance for both cT (κw = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.68) and cN category (κw = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36-0.66). Of 109 patients, 38 (35%) were classified identically for T stage by all 4 Radiology groups, while 74 (68%) showed some disagreement. When considering risk stratification into high risk (cT3 with EMI ≥5 mm or cT4) versus low risk (cT1/cT2 or cT3 with EMI <5 mm) 56 patients (51%) received the same classification all 4 groups, and 95 patients (87%) were classified consistently by at least 3 groups. Overall concordance between radiology and pathological staging was inadequate for both T (κw = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.35-0.57) and N staging (κw = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.07-0.33). The mean sensitivity and specificity of CT scan for pT3/T4 and pT4 were 72%/78% and 33%/93%.
CONCLUSIONS: Identification of high-risk features in resectable CC by CT scan should be implemented to guide patients' selection for neoadjuvant therapies.