ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2022
Interobserver variability in MRI measurements of mesorectal invasion depth in rectal cancer.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A nomogram based on MRI radiomics features of mesorectal fat for diagnosing T2- and T3-stage rectal cancer.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Article
- Diffusion-weighted imaging increases the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging in assessing rectal cancer T stage and reduces intra- and interobserver variability.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
proposeTo assess the interobserver variability in MRI measurements of mesorectal invasion depth (MID) in rectal adenocarcinomas primarily staged as T3, by determining the level of interobserver agreement in the differentiation of individual T3 substages and of T3a-b vs. T3c-d disease, between readers with different levels of expertise.
methodsA retrospective analysis of 60 patients classified by MRI as having T3 rectal cancers was performed. Each patient underwent MR examination in a 1.5 T machine and the standard imaging protocol included a high-resolution axial T2-weighted sequence in which the measurements were determined by independent radiologists (readers A and B, with 15 years and 1 year of experience, respectively). The rectum was further divided into quadrants and each reader selected the quadrant where the measurement was taken. The patients were grouped according to the MID (T3a < 1 mm; T3b 1-5 mm; T3c > 5-15 mm; T3d > 15 mm) and the interobserver reliability was tested using Cohen's kappa.
resultsPopulation included 40 males and 20 females with a median age of 65.9 years. Interobserver agreement on individual substage differentiation (T3 a, b, c and d) was moderate (K = 0.428) and in the quadrant evaluation the level of agreement was also moderate (K = 0.414). Nevertheless, the interobserver reliability for the differentiation between stages T3a-b vs. T3c-d was substantial (K = 0.697).
conclusionsThere is no considerable interobserver variability when distinguishing T3a-b from T3c-d tumors, regardless of the quadrant where the MID is measured. Therefore, assessment of MID, for that purpose, is a reproducible MR parameter, irrespectively of the readers' experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34854927What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.