Premium
Interobserver variability in the radiological assessment of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) including perfusion MRI in glioblastoma multiforme
Author(s) -
Kerkhof M.,
Hagenbeek R. E.,
Kallen B. F. W.,
Lycklama à Nijeholt G. J.,
Dirven L.,
Taphoorn M. J. B.,
Vos M. J.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
european journal of neurology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.881
H-Index - 124
eISSN - 1468-1331
pISSN - 1351-5101
DOI - 10.1111/ene.13070
Subject(s) - medicine , magnetic resonance imaging , nuclear medicine , intraclass correlation , radiology , temozolomide , glioblastoma , cerebral blood volume , radiation therapy , clinical psychology , psychometrics , cancer research
Background and purpose Conventional magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI ) has limited value for differentiation of true tumor progression and pseudoprogression in treated glioblastoma multiforme ( GBM ). Perfusion weighted imaging ( PWI ) may be helpful in the differentiation of these two phenomena. Here interobserver variability in routine radiological evaluation of GBM patients is assessed using MRI , including PWI . Methods Three experienced neuroradiologists evaluated MR scans of 28 GBM patients during temozolomide chemoradiotherapy at three time points: preoperative ( MR 1) and postoperative ( MR 2) MR scan and the follow‐up MR scan after three cycles of adjuvant temozolomide ( MR 3). Tumor size was measured both on T1 post‐contrast and T2 weighted images according to the Response Assessment in Neuro‐Oncology criteria. PW images of MR 3 were evaluated by visual inspection of relative cerebral blood volume ( rCBV ) color maps and by quantitative rCBV measurements of enhancing areas with highest rCBV . Image interpretability of PW images was also scored. Finally, the neuroradiologists gave a conclusion on tumor status, based on the interpretation of both T1 and T2 weighted images ( MR 1, MR 2 and MR 3) in combination with PWI (MR3). Results Interobserver agreement on visual interpretation of rCBV maps was good ( κ = 0.63) but poor on quantitative rCBV measurements and on interpretability of perfusion images (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.37 and κ = 0.23, respectively). Interobserver agreement on the overall conclusion of tumor status was moderate ( κ = 0.48). Conclusions Interobserver agreement on the visual interpretation of PWI color maps was good. However, overall interpretation of MR scans (using both conventional and PW images) showed considerable interobserver variability. Therefore, caution should be applied when interpreting MRI results during chemoradiation therapy.