Philipp Seifert1, Rainer Görges2,3, Michael Zimny4, Michael C Kreissl5, Simone Schenke4,5. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany. philipp.seifert@med.uni-jena.de. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Essen University Hospital, Essen, Germany. 3. Joint Practice for Nuclear Medicine, Duisburg/Moers, Duisburg, Germany. 4. Institute for Nuclear Medicine Hanau, Giessen, Germany. 5. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Magdeburg University Hospital, Magdeburg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the interobserver agreement (IA) and the impact of consensus reading using four risk stratification systems for thyroid nodules (TN). METHODS: Four experienced specialists independently rated US images of 80 TN according to the Kwak-TIRADS, EU-TIRADS, ACR TI-RADS, and ATA Guidelines. The cases were randomly extracted from a prospectively acquired database (n > 1500 TN). The observers were blinded to clinical data. This study was divided into two sessions (S1 and S2) with 40 image sets each. After every session, a consensus reading was carried out (C1, C2). Subsequently, the effect of C1 was tested in S2 with 40 new cases followed by C2. Fleiss' kappa (κ) was calculated for S1 and S2 to estimate the IA and learning curves. The results of C1 and C2 were used as reference for diagnostic accuracy calculations. RESULTS: IA significantly increased (p < 0.01) after C1 with κ values of 0.375 (0.615), 0.411 (0.596), 0.321 (0.569), and 0.410 (0.583) for the Kwak-TIRADS, EU-TIRADS, ACR TI-RADS, and ATA Guidelines in S1 (S2), respectively. ROC analysis (C1 + C2) revealed similar areas under the curve (AUC) for the Kwak-TIRADS, EU-TIRADS, ACR TI-RADS, and ATA Guidelines (0.635, 0.675, 0.694, and 0.654, respectively, n.s.). AUC did not increase from C1 (0.677 ± 0.010) to C2 (0.632 ± 0.052, n.s.). ATA Guidelines were not applicable in five cases. CONCLUSIONS: IA and diagnostic accuracy were very similar for the four investigated risk stratification systems. Consensus reading sessions significantly improved the IA but did not affect the diagnostic accuracy.
PURPOSE: To investigate the interobserver agreement (IA) and the impact of consensus reading using four risk stratification systems for thyroid nodules (TN). METHODS: Four experienced specialists independently rated US images of 80 TN according to the Kwak-TIRADS, EU-TIRADS, ACR TI-RADS, and ATA Guidelines. The cases were randomly extracted from a prospectively acquired database (n > 1500 TN). The observers were blinded to clinical data. This study was divided into two sessions (S1 and S2) with 40 image sets each. After every session, a consensus reading was carried out (C1, C2). Subsequently, the effect of C1 was tested in S2 with 40 new cases followed by C2. Fleiss' kappa (κ) was calculated for S1 and S2 to estimate the IA and learning curves. The results of C1 and C2 were used as reference for diagnostic accuracy calculations. RESULTS: IA significantly increased (p < 0.01) after C1 with κ values of 0.375 (0.615), 0.411 (0.596), 0.321 (0.569), and 0.410 (0.583) for the Kwak-TIRADS, EU-TIRADS, ACR TI-RADS, and ATA Guidelines in S1 (S2), respectively. ROC analysis (C1 + C2) revealed similar areas under the curve (AUC) for the Kwak-TIRADS, EU-TIRADS, ACR TI-RADS, and ATA Guidelines (0.635, 0.675, 0.694, and 0.654, respectively, n.s.). AUC did not increase from C1 (0.677 ± 0.010) to C2 (0.632 ± 0.052, n.s.). ATA Guidelines were not applicable in five cases. CONCLUSIONS: IA and diagnostic accuracy were very similar for the four investigated risk stratification systems. Consensus reading sessions significantly improved the IA but did not affect the diagnostic accuracy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Consensus; Head and neck neoplasms; Interobserver agreement; TI-RADS; Thyroid nodule; Ultrasonography
Authors: Jieun Koh; Hee Jung Moon; Jeong Seon Park; Soo Jin Kim; Ha Yan Kim; Eun-Kyung Kim; Jin Young Kwak Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2015-09-19 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: E Chaigneau; G Russ; B Royer; C Bigorgne; M Bienvenu-Perrard; A Rouxel; L Leenhardt; L Belin; C Buffet Journal: Eur J Endocrinol Date: 2018-04-27 Impact factor: 6.664
Authors: Jenny K Hoang; William D Middleton; Alfredo E Farjat; Sharlene A Teefey; Nicole Abinanti; Fernando J Boschini; Abraham J Bronner; Nirvikar Dahiya; Barbara S Hertzberg; Justin R Newman; Daniel Scanga; Robert C Vogler; Franklin N Tessler Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2018-04-27 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jin Young Kwak; Kyung Hwa Han; Jung Hyun Yoon; Hee Jung Moon; Eun Ju Son; So Hee Park; Hyun Kyung Jung; Ji Soo Choi; Bo Mi Kim; Eun-Kyung Kim Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-07-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Martin Freesmeyer; Thomas Winkens; Luis Weissenrieder; Christian Kühnel; Falk Gühne; Simone Schenke; Robert Drescher; Philipp Seifert Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2020-06-17 Impact factor: 3.576
Authors: Philipp Seifert; Ivonne Maikowski; Thomas Winkens; Christian Kühnel; Falk Gühne; Robert Drescher; Martin Freesmeyer Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-01-04
Authors: Yang Du; Meredith Bara; Prayash Katlariwala; Roger Croutze; Katrin Resch; Jonathan Porter; Medica Sam; Mitchell P Wilson; Gavin Low Journal: World J Radiol Date: 2022-01-28
Authors: Simone Schenke; Rigobert Klett; Philipp Seifert; Michael C Kreissl; Rainer Görges; Michael Zimny Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-01-16 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Whitney Sutton; Joseph K Canner; Lisa M Rooper; Jason D Prescott; Martha A Zeiger; Aarti Mathur Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2020-06-02 Impact factor: 2.565