Amalia Jacquot1, Céline Chauleur2,3, Anne-Sophie Russel-Robillard1, Fabien Tinquaut4, Sandrine Sotton4, Nicolas Magne3,4,5, Guillaume Etievent6. 1. Department of Radiology, Saint-Étienne Teaching Hospital (CHU), Saint-Étienne, France. 2. Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Saint-Étienne Teaching Hospital (CHU), Saint-Étienne, France. 3. Jean Monnet University, Saint-Etienne, France. 4. Department of Research and teaching, Lucien Neuwith Cancer Centre (ICLN), Saint-Etienne, France. 5. Department of Radiotherapy, Lucien Neuwirth Cancer Centre (ICLN), Saint-Étienne, France. 6. Department of Radiology, Lucien Neuwirth Cancer Centre (ICLN), Saint-Étienne, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The main standard of care for locally advanced cervix carcinoma (LACC) is radiochemotherapy (RCT) followed by brachytherapy. A surgical approach may still be discussed based on pelvic MRI-derived residual tumour evaluation. As no interobserver agreement study has ever been conducted to our knowledge, the aim of the present study was to report on pelvic MRI accuracy and interobserver agreement in LACC. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective study in a French university hospital. Medical records of all consecutive patients treated with curative intent for LACC by RCT followed by brachytherapy and completion pelvic surgery between January 2014 and January 2020 were reviewed. Local response was assessed through pelvis MRI and histological analysis after completion surgery. MRI data were independently evaluated by two radiologists with varying experience. The two main interobserving criteria we used were complete response and residual tumour. RESULTS: 23 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Agreement between the junior and senior radiologist was moderate to strong. Indeed, regarding main criteria, κ was 0.65 for complete response and 0.57 for residual tumour. Interestingly, the present study shows a lower sensitivity whatever the radiologists than in the international literature. CONCLUSION: The present study highlights a low interobserver variability regarding pelvic MRI in the assessment of RCT followed by brachytherapy in LACC. Yet, sensitivity was lower than in literature. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Radiology is part of treatment decision-making, the issue of heterogeneity regarding radiologists' training and experience to cancer (sensitivity and specificity) turns essential, so does MRI accuracy.
OBJECTIVES: The main standard of care for locally advanced cervix carcinoma (LACC) is radiochemotherapy (RCT) followed by brachytherapy. A surgical approach may still be discussed based on pelvic MRI-derived residual tumour evaluation. As no interobserver agreement study has ever been conducted to our knowledge, the aim of the present study was to report on pelvic MRI accuracy and interobserver agreement in LACC. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective study in a French university hospital. Medical records of all consecutive patients treated with curative intent for LACC by RCT followed by brachytherapy and completion pelvic surgery between January 2014 and January 2020 were reviewed. Local response was assessed through pelvis MRI and histological analysis after completion surgery. MRI data were independently evaluated by two radiologists with varying experience. The two main interobserving criteria we used were complete response and residual tumour. RESULTS: 23 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Agreement between the junior and senior radiologist was moderate to strong. Indeed, regarding main criteria, κ was 0.65 for complete response and 0.57 for residual tumour. Interestingly, the present study shows a lower sensitivity whatever the radiologists than in the international literature. CONCLUSION: The present study highlights a low interobserver variability regarding pelvic MRI in the assessment of RCT followed by brachytherapy in LACC. Yet, sensitivity was lower than in literature. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Radiology is part of treatment decision-making, the issue of heterogeneity regarding radiologists' training and experience to cancer (sensitivity and specificity) turns essential, so does MRI accuracy.
Authors: Corinne Balleyguier; E Sala; T Da Cunha; A Bergman; B Brkljacic; F Danza; R Forstner; B Hamm; R Kubik-Huch; C Lopez; R Manfredi; J McHugo; L Oleaga; K Togashi; K Kinkel Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-11-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: B Gui; M Miccò; A L Valentini; F Cambi; T Pasciuto; A Testa; R Autorino; G F Zannoni; V Rufini; M A Gambacorta; A Giordano; G Scambia; R Manfredi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-10-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Nicolas Magné; Cyrus Chargari; Lisa Vicenzi; Norman Gillion; Taha Messai; Jacques Magné; Gérald Bonardel; Christine Haie-Meder Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2008-10-11 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: Fiona G M Taylor; Philip Quirke; Richard J Heald; Brendan J Moran; Lennart Blomqvist; Ian R Swift; David Sebag-Montefiore; Paris Tekkis; Gina Brown Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-11-25 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Adrian Cote; Florin Graur Florin; Emil Mois; Radu Elisei; Radu Badea; Codruta Mare; Nadim All Hajjar; Cornel Iancu; Andrei Lebovici Journal: Ann Ital Chir Date: 2018 Impact factor: 0.766