Diagnostic performance of Node Reporting and Data System (Node-RADS) for regional lymph node staging of gastric cancer by CT
Objectives Diagnostic performance of imaging for regional lymph node assessment in gastric cancer is still limited, and there is a lack of consensus on radiological evaluation. At the same time, there is an increasing demand for structured reporting using Reporting and Data Systems (RADS) to standar...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European radiology 2024-05, Vol.34 (5), p.3183-3193 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Objectives
Diagnostic performance of imaging for regional lymph node assessment in gastric cancer is still limited, and there is a lack of consensus on radiological evaluation. At the same time, there is an increasing demand for structured reporting using Reporting and Data Systems (RADS) to standardize oncological imaging. We aimed at investigating the diagnostic performance of Node-RADS compared to the use of various individual criteria for assessing regional lymph nodes in gastric cancer using histopathology as reference.
Methods
In this retrospective single-center study, consecutive 91 patients (median age, 66 years, range 33–91 years, 54 men) with CT scans and histologically proven gastric adenocarcinoma were assessed using Node-RADS assigning scores from 1 to 5 for the likelihood of regional lymph node metastases. Additionally, different Node-RADS criteria as well as subcategories of altered border contour (lobulated, spiculated, indistinct) were assessed individually. Sensitivity, specificity, and Youden’s index were calculated for Node-RADS scores, and all criteria investigated. Interreader agreement was calculated using Cohen’s kappa.
Results
Among all criteria, best performance was found for Node-RADS scores ≥ 3 and ≥ 4 with a sensitivity/specificity/Youden’s index of 56.8%/90.7%/0.48 and 48.6%/98.1%/0.47, respectively, both with substantial interreader agreement (
κ
= 0.73 and 0.67,
p
|
---|---|
ISSN: | 1432-1084 0938-7994 1432-1084 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s00330-023-10352-5 |