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 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 < 0.01). Among individual criteria, the best performance was found for short-axis diameter of 10 mm with sensitivity/specificity/Youden's index of 56.8%/87.0%/0.44 (κ = 0.65, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: This study shows that structured reporting of combined size and configuration criteria of regional lymph nodes in gastric cancer slightly improves overall diagnostic performance compared to individual criteria including short-axis diameter alone. The results show an increase in specificity and unchanged sensitivity. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The results of this study suggest that Node-RADS may be a suitable tool for structured reporting of regional lymph nodes in gastric cancer. KEY POINTS: • Assessment of lymph nodes in gastric cancer is still limited, and there is a lack of consensus on radiological evaluation. • Node-RADS in gastric cancer improves overall diagnostic performance compared to individual criteria including short-axis diameter. • Node-RADS may be a suitable tool for structured reporting of regional lymph nodes in gastric cancer.

Introducing the Node Reporting and Data System 1.0 (Node-RADS): a concept for standardized assessment of lymph nodes in cancer.

"Node-RADS" addresses the lack of consensus in the radiologic assessment of lymph node involvement by cancer and meets the increasing demand for structured reporting on the likelihood of disease involvement. Node Reporting and Data System 1.0 (Node-RADS) systematically classifies the degree of suspicion of lymph node involvement based on the synthesis of established imaging findings. Straightforward definitions of imaging findings for two proposed scoring categories "size" and "configuration" are combined into assessment categories between 1 ("very low likelihood") and 5 ("very high likelihood"). This scoring system is suitable for assessing likely involvement of lymph nodes on CT and MRI scans. It can be applied at any anatomical site, and to regional and non-regional lymph nodes in relation to a primary tumor location. Node-RADS will improve communication with referring physicians and promote the consistency of reporting for primary staging and in response assessment settings. KEY POINTS: • Node-RADS standardizes reporting of possible cancer involvement of regional and distant lymph nodes on CT and MRI. • Node-RADS proposes the scoring categories "size" and "configuration" for assigning the 5-point Node-RADS score from 1 ("very low likelihood") to 5 ("very high likelihood"). • Node-RADS aims to increase consensus among radiologists for primary staging and in response assessment settings.