ABSTRACT
Purpose: To assess and compare intrareader and interreader reproducibility of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) diagnosis of female genital anomalies (FGAs) using the American Society for Reproductive Medicine-Mullerian anomalies classification 2021 (ASRM-MAC 2021) and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology-European Society for Gynecological Endoscopy (ESHRE-ESGE) 2016 classification. Methods: In this retrospective study, we searched our electronic MRI database from April 2021 to September 2023, selecting MRI studies with FGAs. Seventy-six consecutive studies were included and reviewed by 4 independent radiologists using both classifications. Studies were re-evaluated after 1 month. Reproducibility was assessed using kappa (κ) scores with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Intrareader agreement for MRI diagnosis of FGAs was substantial to excellent, with κ scores ranging from 0.684 (95% CI, 0.534-0.834) to 0.985 (95% CI, 0.963-1.01) using the ASRM-MAC 2021 and from 0.743 (95% CI, 0.621-0.865) to 0.846 (95% CI, 0.719-0.973) using the ESHRE-ESGE 2016 classification. Pairwise interreader agreement was higher with the ASRM-MAC 2021, ranging from moderate (κ = 0.491; 95% CI, 0.341-0.642) to substantial (κ = 0.709; 95% CI, 0.597-0.821), compared to the ESHRE-ESGE 2016 classification, with weak (κ = 0.080; 95% CI, 0.068-0.228) to moderate (κ = 0.511; 95% CI, 0.344-0.678) agreement. Overall interreader agreement was moderate for both classifications (κ = 0.599; 95% CI, 0.562-0.638 for ASRM-MAC 2021 and κ = 0.429; 95% CI, 0.396-0.463 for ESHRE-ESGE 2016 classification), but with significant differences (non-overlapping CIs). Conclusion: The intrareader reproducibility was high for both classifications, whereas the interreader reproducibility was higher using the ASRM-MAC 2021, highlighting the impact of classification criteria on the reproducibility of MRI diagnosis of FGAs.
Subject(s)
Genitalia, Female , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Humans , Female , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Reproducibility of Results , Retrospective Studies , Genitalia, Female/diagnostic imaging , Genitalia, Female/abnormalities , Adult , Observer Variation , Middle Aged , Adolescent , Young AdultABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Investigate and compare the diagnostic accuracy and discriminative power of biparametric MRI (bp-MRI) and multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) in predicting muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) based on Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) scoring and evaluate potentially influencing factors on both protocols' accuracy. METHOD: This retrospective study included 54 bladder cancer (BC) patients who underwent bladder MRI and histo-pathological assessment. Three readers independently reviewed the MRI studies and assigned a 1-5 score for T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced images. Then, bp-MRI and mp-MRI final VI-RADS scores were recorded for each BC. Diagnostic tables, chi-square test, kappa score (k), logistic regression, receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves, areas under the curves (AUCs), and VI-RADS cut-off values were calculated. A Delong test was performed for ROC curve comparison. A P-value<0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: In predicting MIBC, bp-MRI and mp-MRI had comparable diagnostic accuracy with insignificant differences for the three readers (P = 0.364,0.718,0.702). Radiologists' experience, and tumors' size and morphology had insignificant effect on bp-MRI accuracy (P = 0.086, 0.392,0.294), respectively. Tumors' size significantly influenced mp-MRI accuracy (P = 0.039). Bp-MRI and mp-MRI had comparable discriminative power with insignificant differences for all readers (P > 0.05). Using VI-RADS > 3 cut-off value improved the discriminative power of bp-MRI. Excellent inter-reader agreement in VI-RADS scoring for bp-MRI (k range, 0.814-0.867) and mp-MRI (k range, 0.787-0.859) was observed. CONCLUSION: Bp-MRI and mp-MRI demonstrated comparable diagnostic accuracy and discriminative power in predicting MIBC. The accuracy of bp-MRI was not influenced by radiologists' experience, or tumors' size and morphology.