Abstract:The accurate, objective, and reproducible evaluation of tumor response to therapy is indispensable in clinical trials. This study aimed at investigating the reliability and reproducibility of a computer-aided contouring (CAC) tool in tumor measurements and its impact on evaluation of tumor response in terms of RECIST 1.1 criteria. A total of 200 cancer patients were retrospectively collected in this study, which were randomly divided into two sets of 100 patients for experiential learning and testing. A total of 744 target lesions were identified by a senior radiologist in distinctive body parts, of which 278 lesions were in data set 1 (learning set) and 466 lesions were in data set 2 (testing set). Five image analysts were respectively instructed to measure lesion diameter using manual and CAC tools in data set 1 and subsequently tested in data set 2. The interobserver variability of tumor measurements was validated by using the coefficient of variance (CV), the Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC), and the interobserver correlation coefficient (ICC). We verified that the mean CV of manual measurement remained constant between the learning and testing data sets (0.33 vs. 0.32, p = 0.490), whereas it decreased for the CAC measurements after learning (0.24 vs. 0.19, p < 0.001). The interobserver measurements with good agreement (CV < 0.20) were 29.9% (manual) vs. 49.0% (CAC) in the learning set ( p < 0.001) and 30.9% (manual) vs. 64.4% (CAC) in the testing set ( p < 0.001). The mean PCCs were 0.56 ± 0.11 mm (manual) vs. 0.69 ± 0.10 mm (CAC) in the learning set ( p = 0.013) and 0.73 ± 0.07 mm (manual) vs. 0.84 ± 0.03 mm (CAC) in the testing set ( p < 0.001). ICCs were 0.633 (manual) vs. 0.698 (CAC) in the learning set ( p < 0.001) and 0.716 (manual) vs. 0.824 (CAC) in the testing set ( p < 0.001). The Fleiss’ kappa analysis revealed that the overall agreement was 58.7% (manual) vs. 58.9% (CAC) in the learning set and 62.9% (manual) vs. 74.5% (CAC) in the testing set. The 80% agreement of tumor response evaluation was 55.0% (manual) vs. 66.0% in the learning set and 60.6% (manual) vs. 79.7% (CAC) in the testing set. In conclusion, CAC can reduce the interobserver variability of radiological tumor measurements and thus improve the agreement of imaging evaluation of tumor response.

Inter-reader agreement of the BI-RADS CEM lexicon

Inter-reader agreement of breast magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced mammography in breast cancer diagnosis: a multi-reader retrospective study

Use of US BIRADS for the Differentiation of Male Breast Masses and Interobserver Agreement Assessment

Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) lexicon for breast MRI: interobserver variability in the description and assignment of BI-RADS category

Value of Scoring by Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Combined with Ultrasonic Elastography in Differential Diagnosis of BI-RADS 4 Lesions

Interobserver and inter-modalities agreement of contrast-enhanced ultrasound liver imaging reporting and data system(CEUS LI-RADS) and magnetic resonance imaging liver imaging reporting and data system(MRI LI-RADS) for hepatocellular carcinoma in high-risk patients

Development, standardization, and testing of a lexicon for reporting contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging studies

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

BI-RADS Category Assignments by GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Google Bard: A Multilanguage Study

Insights from Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM)

Inter‐Reader Agreement for Contrast‐Enhanced Ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Major Features and Final Categorization

A Multicenter Assessment of Interreader Reliability of LI-RADS Version 2018 for MRI and CT

Validation of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography as Breast Imaging Modality Compared to Standard Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

Improving the Diagnostic Accuracy of Breast BI-RADS 4 Microcalcification-Only Lesions Using Contrast-Enhanced Mammography

Contrast Enhanced Mammography (CEM) Enhancing Asymmetry: Single-Center First Case Analysis

Multireader comparison of contrast-enhanced mammography versus the combination of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the preoperative assessment of breast cancer

Comparison of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast CT (CE-CBBCT) and breast MRI

Exploring the Interobserver Agreement in Computer-Aided Radiologic Tumor Measurement and Evaluation of Tumor Response

Application of the Kaiser score on contrast-enhanced mammography in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions: comparison with breast magnetic resonance imaging

A head-to-head comparison of breast lesion's conspicuity at contrast-enhanced mammography and contrast-enhanced MRI

Supervised Machine Learning Algorithm for Detecting Consistency between Reported Findings and the Conclusions of Mammography Reports