Hae Young Kim1, Yoon Jin Lee1, Won Chang1, Jungheum Cho1, Ji Hoon Park1,2,3, Jong-Chan Lee4, Jaihwan Kim4, Jin-Hyeok Hwang4, Young Hoon Kim5,6. 1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 82, Gumi-ro 173 Beon-gil, Bundang-gu, Gyeonggi-do, Seongnam-si, 13620, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Applied Bioengineering, Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Suwon, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Republic of Korea. 5. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 82, Gumi-ro 173 Beon-gil, Bundang-gu, Gyeonggi-do, Seongnam-si, 13620, Republic of Korea. yhkrad@gmail.com. 6. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea. yhkrad@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: First, to measure inter-observer agreement regarding tumor resectability and response, and second, to measure diagnostic performance in predicting negative resection margin, on re-staging CTs of patients who received neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients who received neoadjuvant therapy for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer from 2017 to 2020. Six readers independently evaluated initial staging and re-staging CT images. They categorized the resectability on re-staging CT based on the NCCN guideline, and evaluated tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy according to our proposed criteria on a 5-grade scale. For inter-observer agreement, Gwet's agreement coefficients were used. A crossed random effect model was used to pool the sensitivity and specificity of six readers in predicting negative resection margin. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients with the median age of 66 (59-70) were included. The pooled agreement for tumor resectability was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.56-0.71) for differentiating the three categories, and 0.84 (0.77-0.91) for differentiating resectable or borderline resectable cancer vs. unresectable cancer. Agreement for tumor response grade was 0.89 (0.85-0.92). The pooled sensitivity and specificity for predicting negative resection margin were 48% (43-52%) and 61% (57-64%), respectively, when only "resectable" on re-staging CT was considered as index test positive. When either "resectable"' or "borderline resectable" was considered as positive, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 91% (89-94%) and 5% (4-6%), respectively. CONCLUSION: CT can be used reliably with a high inter-observer agreement in selecting candidates for surgery after neoadjuvant therapy of pancreatic cancer. KEY POINTS: • On CT following neoadjuvant therapy of pancreatic cancer, six readers showed high agreement in differentiating resectable or borderline resectable vs. unresectable cancer (Gwet's coefficient, 0.84). • Inter-observer agreement was also high for our proposed tumor response grade (Gwet's coefficient, 0.89). • Specificity was very low (5%) while sensitivity was high (91%) when either resectable or borderline resectable cancer on re-staging CT was considered as predictive of negative resection margin status.
OBJECTIVES: First, to measure inter-observer agreement regarding tumor resectability and response, and second, to measure diagnostic performance in predicting negative resection margin, on re-staging CTs of patients who received neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients who received neoadjuvant therapy for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer from 2017 to 2020. Six readers independently evaluated initial staging and re-staging CT images. They categorized the resectability on re-staging CT based on the NCCN guideline, and evaluated tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy according to our proposed criteria on a 5-grade scale. For inter-observer agreement, Gwet's agreement coefficients were used. A crossed random effect model was used to pool the sensitivity and specificity of six readers in predicting negative resection margin. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients with the median age of 66 (59-70) were included. The pooled agreement for tumor resectability was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.56-0.71) for differentiating the three categories, and 0.84 (0.77-0.91) for differentiating resectable or borderline resectable cancer vs. unresectable cancer. Agreement for tumor response grade was 0.89 (0.85-0.92). The pooled sensitivity and specificity for predicting negative resection margin were 48% (43-52%) and 61% (57-64%), respectively, when only "resectable" on re-staging CT was considered as index test positive. When either "resectable"' or "borderline resectable" was considered as positive, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 91% (89-94%) and 5% (4-6%), respectively. CONCLUSION: CT can be used reliably with a high inter-observer agreement in selecting candidates for surgery after neoadjuvant therapy of pancreatic cancer. KEY POINTS: • On CT following neoadjuvant therapy of pancreatic cancer, six readers showed high agreement in differentiating resectable or borderline resectable vs. unresectable cancer (Gwet's coefficient, 0.84). • Inter-observer agreement was also high for our proposed tumor response grade (Gwet's coefficient, 0.89). • Specificity was very low (5%) while sensitivity was high (91%) when either resectable or borderline resectable cancer on re-staging CT was considered as predictive of negative resection margin status.
Authors: Eva Versteijne; Mustafa Suker; Karin Groothuis; Janine M Akkermans-Vogelaar; Marc G Besselink; Bert A Bonsing; Jeroen Buijsen; Olivier R Busch; Geert-Jan M Creemers; Ronald M van Dam; Ferry A L M Eskens; Sebastiaan Festen; Jan Willem B de Groot; Bas Groot Koerkamp; Ignace H de Hingh; Marjolein Y V Homs; Jeanin E van Hooft; Emile D Kerver; Saskia A C Luelmo; Karen J Neelis; Joost Nuyttens; Gabriel M R M Paardekooper; Gijs A Patijn; Maurice J C van der Sangen; Judith de Vos-Geelen; Johanna W Wilmink; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Cornelis J Punt; Casper H van Eijck; Geertjan van Tienhoven Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Cristina R Ferrone; Giovanni Marchegiani; Theodore S Hong; David P Ryan; Vikram Deshpande; Erin I McDonnell; Francesco Sabbatino; Daniela Dias Santos; Jill N Allen; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; Jeffrey W Clark; Jason E Faris; Lipika Goyal; Eunice L Kwak; Janet E Murphy; David T Ting; Jennifer Y Wo; Andrew X Zhu; Andrew L Warshaw; Keith D Lillemoe; Carlos Fernández-del Castillo Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Ijin Joo; Jeong Min Lee; Eun Sun Lee; Su Joa Ahn; Dong Ho Lee; Sun-Whe Kim; Ji Kon Ryu; Do-Youn Oh; Kyubo Kim; Kyoung-Bun Lee; Jin-Young Jang Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2018-02-28 Impact factor: 3.959