Metastatic Versus Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures on MRI: A Blinded, Multicenter, and Multispecialty Observer Agreement Evaluation

Author:

Arana Estanislao12,Kovacs Francisco M.23,Royuela Ana24,Asenjo Beatriz25,Nagib Fatima25,Pérez-Aguilera Sandra26,Dejoz María27,Cabrera-Zubizarreta Alberto28,García-Hidalgo Yolanda29,Estremera Ana210,_ _

Affiliation:

1. aDepartment of Radiology, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia;

2. bSpanish Back Pain Research Network, Kovacs Foundation, Palma de Mallorca;

3. cUnidad de la Espalda Kovacs, Hospital Universitario HLA-Moncloa, Madrid;

4. dClinical Biostatistics Unit, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Puerta de Hierro-Segovia de Arana, Madrid;

5. eDepartment of Radiology, Hospital Universitario Regional de Málaga, Málaga;

6. fDepartment of Radiology, Hospital de Manacor, Mallorca;

7. gSchool of Biomedical Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de Valencia, Valencia;

8. hDepartment of Radiology, Hospital de Galdakao, Galdakao, Bizkaia;

9. iDepartment of Radiology, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro, Madrid; and

10. jDepartment of Radiology, Hospital Son Llàtzer, Palma de Mallorca, Spain.

Abstract

Background: MRI is assumed to be valid for distinguishing metastatic vertebral fractures (MVFs) from osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs). This study assessed (1) concordance between the image-based diagnosis of MVF versus OVF and the reference (biopsy or follow-up of >6 months), (2) interobserver and intraobserver agreement on key imaging findings and the diagnosis of MVF versus OVF, and (3) whether disclosing a patient’s history of cancer leads to variations in diagnosis, concordance, or agreement. Patients and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included clinical data and imaging from 203 patients with confirmed MVF or OVF provided to 25 clinicians (neurosurgeons, radiologists, orthopedic surgeons, and radiation oncologists). From January 2018 through October 2018, the clinicians interpreted images in conditions as close as possible to routine practice. Each specialist assessed data twice, with a minimum 6-week interval, blinded to assessments made by other clinicians and to their own previous assessments. The kappa statistic was used to assess interobserver and intraobserver agreement on key imaging findings, diagnosis (MVF vs OVF), and concordance with the reference. Subgroup analyses were based on clinicians’ specialty, years of experience, and complexity of the hospital where they worked. Results: For diagnosis of MVF versus OVF, interobserver agreement was fair, whereas intraobserver agreement was substantial. Only the latter improved to almost perfect when a patient’s history of cancer was disclosed. Interobserver agreement for key imaging findings was fair or moderate, whereas intraobserver agreement on key imaging findings was moderate or substantial. Concordance between the diagnosis of MVF versus OVF and the reference was moderate. Results were similar regardless of clinicians’ specialty, experience, and hospital category. Conclusions: When MRI is used to distinguish MVF versus OVF, interobserver agreement and concordance with the reference were moderate. These results cast doubt on the reliability of basing such a diagnosis on MRI in routine practice.

Publisher

Harborside Press, LLC

Subject

Oncology

Cited by 9 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3