Journal Article

Inter-reader agreement of CEUS LI-RADS among radiologists with different levels of experience

Lin, Man-xia, Huang, Yang, Lu, Ming-De, Wang, Wei, Hu, Hang-Tong, Chen, Li-Da, Kuang, Ming, Li, Lv, Zhuang, Bo-Wen, Li, Wei, Xie, Xiao-Yan, Ruan, Si-Min

2021

Overview

Objectives To investigate the inter-reader agreement of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2017 (LI-RADS v2017) categories among radiologists with different levels of experience. Materials and methods From January 2014 to December 2014, a total of 326 patients at high risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who underwent CEUS were included in this retrospective study. All lesions were classified according to LI-RADS v2017 by six radiologists with different levels of experiences: two residents, two fellows, and two specialists. Kappa coefficient was used to assess consistency of LI-RADS categories and major features among radiologists with different levels of experience. The diagnostic performance of HCC was described by accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC). Results Inter-reader agreement among radiologists of different experience levels was substantial agreement for arterial phase hyperenhancement, washout appearance, and early or late washout. Inter-reader agreement for LI-RADS categories was moderate to substantial. When LR-5 was used as criteria to determinate HCC, the AUC of LI-RADS for HCC was 0.67 for residents, 0.72 for fellows, and 0.78 for specialist radiologists. When compared between residents and specialists, accuracy, sensitivity, and AUC were significantly different (all p < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences in specificity, PPV, and NPV between the two groups. Conclusion CEUS LI-RADS showed good diagnostic consistency among radiologists with different levels of experience, and consistency increased with experience levels. Key Points • The inter-reader agreement for LI-RADS categories was moderate to substantial agreement (κ, 0.60–0.80). • When compared between residents and specialists, accuracy, sensitivity, and AUC showed significantly different (all p < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences for specificity, PPV, and NPV between these two groups. • Among the radiologists with more than 1 year of experience, there was no significant difference in the diagnostic performance of HCC, suggesting that CEUS LI-RADS is a good standardized categorization system for high-risk patients.

• Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg,Springer Nature B.V
• Subject: Accuracy / Agreements / Categories / Consistency / Diagnostic Radiology / Diagnostic systems / Hepatocellular carcinoma / Imaging / Internal Medicine / Interventional Radiology / Liver cancer / Medicine / Medicine & Public Health / Neuroradiology / Radiology / Risk groups / Sensitivity / Ultrasound