Christopher D Maroules1, Christian Hamilton-Craig2, Kelley Branch3, James Lee4, Roberto C Cury5, Pál Maurovich-Horvat6, Ronen Rubinshtein7, Dustin Thomas8, Michelle Williams9, Yanshu Guo3, Ricardo C Cury10. 1. Department of Radiology, Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, VA, United States; Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL, United States. Electronic address: Christopher.maroules@gmail.com. 2. The University of Queensland, Australia. 3. Department of Cardiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States. 4. Henry Ford Health System, Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Center for Structural Heart Disease, United States. Electronic address: jlee24@hfhs.org. 5. Hospital Samaritano, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 6. Heart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary. 7. Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. 8. Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX, United States. 9. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. 10. Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Coronary Artery Disease Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS) provides a lexicon and standardized reporting system for coronary CT angiography. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate inter-observer agreement of the CAD-RADS among an panel of early career and expert readers. METHODS: Four early career and four expert cardiac imaging readers prospectively and independently evaluated 50 coronary CT angiography cases using the CAD-RADS lexicon. All readers assessed image quality using a five-point Likert scale, with mean Likert score ≥4 designating high image quality, and <4 designating moderate/low image quality. All readers were blinded to medical history and invasive coronary angiography findings. Inter-observer agreement for CAD-RADS assessment categories and modifiers were assessed using intra-class correlation (ICC) and Fleiss' Kappa (κ).The impact of reader experience and image quality on inter-observer agreement was also examined. RESULTS: Inter-observer agreement for CAD-RADS assessment categories was excellent (ICC 0.958, 95% CI 0.938-0.974, p < 0.0001). Agreement among expert readers (ICC 0.925, 95% CI 0.884-0.954) was marginally stronger than for early career readers (ICC 0.904, 95% CI 0.852-0.941), both p < 0.0001. High image quality was associated with stronger agreement than moderate image quality (ICC 0.944, 95% CI 0.886-0.974 vs. ICC 0.887, 95% CI 0.775-0.95, both p < 0.0001). While excellent inter-observer agreement was observed for modifiers S (stent) and G (bypass graft) (both κ = 1.0), only fair agreement (κ = 0.40) was observed for modifier V (high risk plaque). CONCLUSION: Inter-observer reproducibility of CAD-RADS assessment categories and modifiers is excellent, except for high-risk plaque (modifier V) which demonstrates fair agreement. These results suggest CAD-RADS is feasible for clinical implementation.
BACKGROUND: The Coronary Artery Disease Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS) provides a lexicon and standardized reporting system for coronary CT angiography. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate inter-observer agreement of the CAD-RADS among an panel of early career and expert readers. METHODS: Four early career and four expert cardiac imaging readers prospectively and independently evaluated 50 coronary CT angiography cases using the CAD-RADS lexicon. All readers assessed image quality using a five-point Likert scale, with mean Likert score ≥4 designating high image quality, and <4 designating moderate/low image quality. All readers were blinded to medical history and invasive coronary angiography findings. Inter-observer agreement for CAD-RADS assessment categories and modifiers were assessed using intra-class correlation (ICC) and Fleiss' Kappa (κ).The impact of reader experience and image quality on inter-observer agreement was also examined. RESULTS: Inter-observer agreement for CAD-RADS assessment categories was excellent (ICC 0.958, 95% CI 0.938-0.974, p < 0.0001). Agreement among expert readers (ICC 0.925, 95% CI 0.884-0.954) was marginally stronger than for early career readers (ICC 0.904, 95% CI 0.852-0.941), both p < 0.0001. High image quality was associated with stronger agreement than moderate image quality (ICC 0.944, 95% CI 0.886-0.974 vs. ICC 0.887, 95% CI 0.775-0.95, both p < 0.0001). While excellent inter-observer agreement was observed for modifiers S (stent) and G (bypass graft) (both κ = 1.0), only fair agreement (κ = 0.40) was observed for modifier V (high risk plaque). CONCLUSION: Inter-observer reproducibility of CAD-RADS assessment categories and modifiers is excellent, except for high-risk plaque (modifier V) which demonstrates fair agreement. These results suggest CAD-RADS is feasible for clinical implementation.
Authors: Michelle C Williams; Jacek Kwiecinski; Mhairi Doris; Priscilla McElhinney; Michelle S D'Souza; Sebastien Cadet; Philip D Adamson; Alastair J Moss; Shirjel Alam; Amanda Hunter; Anoop S V Shah; Nicholas L Mills; Tania Pawade; Chengjia Wang; Jonathan R Weir-McCall; Michael Bonnici-Mallia; Christopher Murrills; Giles Roditi; Edwin J R van Beek; Leslee J Shaw; Edward D Nicol; Daniel S Berman; Piotr J Slomka; David E Newby; Marc R Dweck; Damini Dey Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2021-04-14
Authors: Mohammed N Meah; Trisha Singh; Michelle C Williams; Marc R Dweck; David E Newby; Piotr Slomka; Philip D Adamson; Alastair J Moss; Damini Dey Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2020-12-28
Authors: Michelle C Williams; Alastair J Moss; Marc Dweck; Philip D Adamson; Shirjel Alam; Amanda Hunter; Anoop S V Shah; Tania Pawade; Jonathan R Weir-McCall; Giles Roditi; Edwin J R van Beek; David E Newby; Edward D Nicol Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Christian R Hamilton-Craig; Karman Tandon; Bianca Kwan; Karen DeBoni; Chris Burley; Allan J Wesley; Rachael O'Rourke; Johanne Neill; Kelley R Branch Journal: J Med Radiat Sci Date: 2019-11-06
Authors: Joshua Boster; Robert Hull; Michael U Williams; Jeremy Berger; Alec Sharp; Emilio Fentanes; Christopher Maroules; Ricardo Cury; Dustin Thomas Journal: Cureus Date: 2019-09-20
Authors: Moises A Huaman; Carlo N De Cecco; Marcio S Bittencourt; Eduardo Ticona; Cissy Kityo; Isabel Ballena; Sophie Nalukwago; Rashidah Nazzinda; Cesar Ticona; Ruben Azañero; Bin Zhang; Carey Farquhar; Thomas R Hawn; Timothy R Sterling; Carl J Fichtenbaum; Chris T Longenecker Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2021-11-02 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Márton Kolossváry; Júlia Karády; Yasuka Kikuchi; Alexander Ivanov; Christopher L Schlett; Michael T Lu; Borek Foldyna; Béla Merkely; Hugo J Aerts; Udo Hoffmann; Pál Maurovich-Horvat Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-08-06 Impact factor: 11.105