Computed Tomography Observer Agreement in Staging Malignant Lymphoma
To determine pretreatment computed tomography observer agreement in patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma. Forty-nine computed tomography scans were reviewed by 3 experienced radiologists, with each scan assessed twice by 1 observer. Predefined nodal and extranodal regions were assessed, and Ann Ar...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of computer assisted tomography 2016-03, Vol.40 (2), p.261-265 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 265 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 261 |
| container_title | Journal of computer assisted tomography |
| container_volume | 40 |
| creator | de Jong, Antoinette Kwee, Thomas C Quarles van Ufford, Henriëtte M E Beek, Frederik J A Quekel, Lorentz G B A de Klerk, John M H Zijlstra, Josée M Fijnheer, Rob Ludwig, Inge Kersten, Marie José Stoker, Jaap Nievelstein, Rutger A J |
| description | To determine pretreatment computed tomography observer agreement in patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma.
Forty-nine computed tomography scans were reviewed by 3 experienced radiologists, with each scan assessed twice by 1 observer. Predefined nodal and extranodal regions were assessed, and Ann Arbor stages were assigned. K-statistics were defined as poor (κ < 0.2), fair (κ > 0.2 to κ ≤ 0.4), moderate (κ > 0.4 to κ ≤ 0.6), substantial (κ > 0.6 to κ ≤ 0.8), and almost perfect (κ > 0.8 to κ ≤ 1).
Nodal interobserver agreement varied from 0.09 for infraclavicular involvement to 0.95 for para-iliac involvement; intraobserver agreement was substantial to almost perfect, except for infraclavicular nodes. Extranodal interobserver agreement varied from 0.56 to 0.88; intraobserver agreement was substantial to almost perfect. Ann Arbor stage interobserver agreement varied from 0.57 to 0.69; intraobserver agreement was substantial.
Computed tomography observer agreement in staging malignant lymphoma appears to be suboptimal. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000338 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1815704436</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1815704436</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-941f700fd79d307e57588c3f90331a1ddba223d4ed022d9a543875d96e07deb43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE1Lw0AQhhdRbK3-A5EcvaTuZzZ7LPETKgWt57DJTtJINom7idB_b0qriBfnMjC878w7D0KXBM8JVvLmJVnP8e9iLD5CUyIYDRnh4hhNMYtYGEsiJujM-3eMiWSMn6IJjYRSKqJTdJu0tht6MMG6tW3pdLfZBqvMg_sEFyxKB2Ch6YOqCV57XVZNGTzruiobPQ6XW9ttWqvP0Umhaw8Xhz5Db_d36-QxXK4enpLFMswZx32oOCkkxoWRyjAsQUgRxzkr1BidaGJMpillhoPBlBqlBWexFEZFgKWBjLMZut7v7Vz7MYDvU1v5HOpaN9AOPiUxERJzPr79r1RKTiIu8E7K99Lctd47KNLOVVa7bUpwukOdjqjTv6hH29XhwpBZMD-mb7bsC6ymeBs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1774164506</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Computed Tomography Observer Agreement in Staging Malignant Lymphoma</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>de Jong, Antoinette ; Kwee, Thomas C ; Quarles van Ufford, Henriëtte M E ; Beek, Frederik J A ; Quekel, Lorentz G B A ; de Klerk, John M H ; Zijlstra, Josée M ; Fijnheer, Rob ; Ludwig, Inge ; Kersten, Marie José ; Stoker, Jaap ; Nievelstein, Rutger A J</creator><creatorcontrib>de Jong, Antoinette ; Kwee, Thomas C ; Quarles van Ufford, Henriëtte M E ; Beek, Frederik J A ; Quekel, Lorentz G B A ; de Klerk, John M H ; Zijlstra, Josée M ; Fijnheer, Rob ; Ludwig, Inge ; Kersten, Marie José ; Stoker, Jaap ; Nievelstein, Rutger A J</creatorcontrib><description>To determine pretreatment computed tomography observer agreement in patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma.
Forty-nine computed tomography scans were reviewed by 3 experienced radiologists, with each scan assessed twice by 1 observer. Predefined nodal and extranodal regions were assessed, and Ann Arbor stages were assigned. K-statistics were defined as poor (κ < 0.2), fair (κ > 0.2 to κ ≤ 0.4), moderate (κ > 0.4 to κ ≤ 0.6), substantial (κ > 0.6 to κ ≤ 0.8), and almost perfect (κ > 0.8 to κ ≤ 1).
Nodal interobserver agreement varied from 0.09 for infraclavicular involvement to 0.95 for para-iliac involvement; intraobserver agreement was substantial to almost perfect, except for infraclavicular nodes. Extranodal interobserver agreement varied from 0.56 to 0.88; intraobserver agreement was substantial to almost perfect. Ann Arbor stage interobserver agreement varied from 0.57 to 0.69; intraobserver agreement was substantial.
Computed tomography observer agreement in staging malignant lymphoma appears to be suboptimal.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0363-8715</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-3145</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000338</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26599962</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Child ; Cohort Studies ; Female ; Humans ; Lymph Nodes - diagnostic imaging ; Lymph Nodes - pathology ; Lymphoma - diagnostic imaging ; Lymphoma - pathology ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasm Staging ; Observer Variation ; Prospective Studies ; Reproducibility of Results ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Journal of computer assisted tomography, 2016-03, Vol.40 (2), p.261-265</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-941f700fd79d307e57588c3f90331a1ddba223d4ed022d9a543875d96e07deb43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-941f700fd79d307e57588c3f90331a1ddba223d4ed022d9a543875d96e07deb43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26599962$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>de Jong, Antoinette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kwee, Thomas C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quarles van Ufford, Henriëtte M E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beek, Frederik J A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quekel, Lorentz G B A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Klerk, John M H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zijlstra, Josée M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fijnheer, Rob</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ludwig, Inge</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kersten, Marie José</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stoker, Jaap</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nievelstein, Rutger A J</creatorcontrib><title>Computed Tomography Observer Agreement in Staging Malignant Lymphoma</title><title>Journal of computer assisted tomography</title><addtitle>J Comput Assist Tomogr</addtitle><description>To determine pretreatment computed tomography observer agreement in patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma.
Forty-nine computed tomography scans were reviewed by 3 experienced radiologists, with each scan assessed twice by 1 observer. Predefined nodal and extranodal regions were assessed, and Ann Arbor stages were assigned. K-statistics were defined as poor (κ < 0.2), fair (κ > 0.2 to κ ≤ 0.4), moderate (κ > 0.4 to κ ≤ 0.6), substantial (κ > 0.6 to κ ≤ 0.8), and almost perfect (κ > 0.8 to κ ≤ 1).
Nodal interobserver agreement varied from 0.09 for infraclavicular involvement to 0.95 for para-iliac involvement; intraobserver agreement was substantial to almost perfect, except for infraclavicular nodes. Extranodal interobserver agreement varied from 0.56 to 0.88; intraobserver agreement was substantial to almost perfect. Ann Arbor stage interobserver agreement varied from 0.57 to 0.69; intraobserver agreement was substantial.
Computed tomography observer agreement in staging malignant lymphoma appears to be suboptimal.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Cohort Studies</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lymph Nodes - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Lymph Nodes - pathology</subject><subject>Lymphoma - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Lymphoma - pathology</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neoplasm Staging</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0363-8715</issn><issn>1532-3145</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkE1Lw0AQhhdRbK3-A5EcvaTuZzZ7LPETKgWt57DJTtJINom7idB_b0qriBfnMjC878w7D0KXBM8JVvLmJVnP8e9iLD5CUyIYDRnh4hhNMYtYGEsiJujM-3eMiWSMn6IJjYRSKqJTdJu0tht6MMG6tW3pdLfZBqvMg_sEFyxKB2Ch6YOqCV57XVZNGTzruiobPQ6XW9ttWqvP0Umhaw8Xhz5Db_d36-QxXK4enpLFMswZx32oOCkkxoWRyjAsQUgRxzkr1BidaGJMpillhoPBlBqlBWexFEZFgKWBjLMZut7v7Vz7MYDvU1v5HOpaN9AOPiUxERJzPr79r1RKTiIu8E7K99Lctd47KNLOVVa7bUpwukOdjqjTv6hH29XhwpBZMD-mb7bsC6ymeBs</recordid><startdate>20160301</startdate><enddate>20160301</enddate><creator>de Jong, Antoinette</creator><creator>Kwee, Thomas C</creator><creator>Quarles van Ufford, Henriëtte M E</creator><creator>Beek, Frederik J A</creator><creator>Quekel, Lorentz G B A</creator><creator>de Klerk, John M H</creator><creator>Zijlstra, Josée M</creator><creator>Fijnheer, Rob</creator><creator>Ludwig, Inge</creator><creator>Kersten, Marie José</creator><creator>Stoker, Jaap</creator><creator>Nievelstein, Rutger A J</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160301</creationdate><title>Computed Tomography Observer Agreement in Staging Malignant Lymphoma</title><author>de Jong, Antoinette ; Kwee, Thomas C ; Quarles van Ufford, Henriëtte M E ; Beek, Frederik J A ; Quekel, Lorentz G B A ; de Klerk, John M H ; Zijlstra, Josée M ; Fijnheer, Rob ; Ludwig, Inge ; Kersten, Marie José ; Stoker, Jaap ; Nievelstein, Rutger A J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-941f700fd79d307e57588c3f90331a1ddba223d4ed022d9a543875d96e07deb43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Cohort Studies</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lymph Nodes - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Lymph Nodes - pathology</topic><topic>Lymphoma - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Lymphoma - pathology</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neoplasm Staging</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>de Jong, Antoinette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kwee, Thomas C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quarles van Ufford, Henriëtte M E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beek, Frederik J A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quekel, Lorentz G B A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Klerk, John M H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zijlstra, Josée M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fijnheer, Rob</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ludwig, Inge</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kersten, Marie José</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stoker, Jaap</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nievelstein, Rutger A J</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of computer assisted tomography</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>de Jong, Antoinette</au><au>Kwee, Thomas C</au><au>Quarles van Ufford, Henriëtte M E</au><au>Beek, Frederik J A</au><au>Quekel, Lorentz G B A</au><au>de Klerk, John M H</au><au>Zijlstra, Josée M</au><au>Fijnheer, Rob</au><au>Ludwig, Inge</au><au>Kersten, Marie José</au><au>Stoker, Jaap</au><au>Nievelstein, Rutger A J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Computed Tomography Observer Agreement in Staging Malignant Lymphoma</atitle><jtitle>Journal of computer assisted tomography</jtitle><addtitle>J Comput Assist Tomogr</addtitle><date>2016-03-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>261</spage><epage>265</epage><pages>261-265</pages><issn>0363-8715</issn><eissn>1532-3145</eissn><abstract>To determine pretreatment computed tomography observer agreement in patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma.
Forty-nine computed tomography scans were reviewed by 3 experienced radiologists, with each scan assessed twice by 1 observer. Predefined nodal and extranodal regions were assessed, and Ann Arbor stages were assigned. K-statistics were defined as poor (κ < 0.2), fair (κ > 0.2 to κ ≤ 0.4), moderate (κ > 0.4 to κ ≤ 0.6), substantial (κ > 0.6 to κ ≤ 0.8), and almost perfect (κ > 0.8 to κ ≤ 1).
Nodal interobserver agreement varied from 0.09 for infraclavicular involvement to 0.95 for para-iliac involvement; intraobserver agreement was substantial to almost perfect, except for infraclavicular nodes. Extranodal interobserver agreement varied from 0.56 to 0.88; intraobserver agreement was substantial to almost perfect. Ann Arbor stage interobserver agreement varied from 0.57 to 0.69; intraobserver agreement was substantial.
Computed tomography observer agreement in staging malignant lymphoma appears to be suboptimal.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>26599962</pmid><doi>10.1097/RCT.0000000000000338</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0363-8715 |
| ispartof | Journal of computer assisted tomography, 2016-03, Vol.40 (2), p.261-265 |
| issn | 0363-8715 1532-3145 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1815704436 |
| source | MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete |
| subjects | Adolescent Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Child Cohort Studies Female Humans Lymph Nodes - diagnostic imaging Lymph Nodes - pathology Lymphoma - diagnostic imaging Lymphoma - pathology Male Middle Aged Neoplasm Staging Observer Variation Prospective Studies Reproducibility of Results Tomography, X-Ray Computed Young Adult |
| title | Computed Tomography Observer Agreement in Staging Malignant Lymphoma |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T23%3A00%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Computed%20Tomography%20Observer%20Agreement%20in%20Staging%20Malignant%20Lymphoma&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20computer%20assisted%20tomography&rft.au=de%20Jong,%20Antoinette&rft.date=2016-03-01&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=261&rft.epage=265&rft.pages=261-265&rft.issn=0363-8715&rft.eissn=1532-3145&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/RCT.0000000000000338&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1815704436%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1774164506&rft_id=info:pmid/26599962&rfr_iscdi=true |