ArticleEuropean journal of radiology2026
Image registration improves inter-reader agreement of objective response in CT assessment of pancreas adenocarcinoma.
Article in European journal of radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesPancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) exhibits ill-defined appearance on imaging during neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), which may limit consistency of dimensional measurements for objective response. This study evaluates inter-reader variability of current clinical measures of tumor size and interval response between baseline and restaging CT, and compares reader reliability with and without image registration assistance.
methodsTwo senior and two junior radiologists retrospectively reviewed imaging of resectable PDAC patients enrolled in an IRB-approved Phase II clinical trial. Readers segmented lesion volumes from baseline and restaging CT and measured axial plane diameters to evaluate therapeutic response according to RECIST v1.1 and WHO criteria. Reliability of criteria index measures were compared with a computer-assisted image registration approach. Inter-reader agreements were quantified via generalized conformity index (GCI), concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and Fleiss' Kappa (k). Statistical analyses were performed with significance level α = 0.05.
resultsBaseline and restaging imaging of 30 patients (67 ± 10y, 50% female) were evaluated. Inter-reader agreements of segmented tumor volumes at baseline/restaging were low (junior: GCI = 0.42/0.35, CCC = 0.36/0.68; senior: GCI = 0.43/0.39, CCC = 0.62/0.96; all readers: GCI = 0.43/0.38, CCC = 0.66/0.78). Agreements in percent change in tumor size differed by experience level (longest diameter: CCC = 0.26/0.77/0.59, p < 0.01; diameter product: CCC = 0.32/0.86/0.66, p < 0.001) and produced low kappa agreements (RECIST: k = 0.0/0.37/0.23, p < 0.01; WHO: k = 0.0/0.31/0.18, p = 0.01 [junior/senior/all readers]). Image registration-assisted tumor response produced higher agreements across all levels of reader experience (k = 0.82/0.80/0.81, p < 0.01; CCC = 0.83/0.95/0.91, p < 0.05 [junior/senior/all readers]).
conclusionSubstantial measurement variability exists in CT assessment of PDAC tumor response during NAT. Longitudinal image registration improves reproducibility and diminishes experience gap in radiologist assessments of objective response.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.