RESUMO
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the interest of a systematic second opinion in quality assessment and FIGO staging in the pretherapeutic imaging work-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted on 156 patients who underwent surgery for endometrioid cancer in our institution. 42 % had their initial MRI scans performed in expert centers (University Hospital and Cancer center) and 58 % in non-expert centers. Quality assessment, concordances between initial reports, and second opinions by a junior and a senior ICL radiologist versus histopathological data were analyzed. RESULTS: MRI scans performed in expert centers were more complete and more likely to be rated as higher quality. The overall accuracy of T staging from initial reports vs gold standard was 0.59 (95 % CI, 0.46-0.71) in expert centers and 0.49 (95 % CI, 0.38-0.60) in non-expert centers. The overall accuracy and Kappa of a second opinion for FIGO 2009 staging from expert center and non-expert center examinations were 0.61 (95 % CI, 0.48-0.72) vs 0.50 (95 % CI, 0.39-0.60) and 0.37 vs 0.27 for junior reader and 0.62 (95 % CI, 0.49-0.74) vs 0.48 (95 % CI, 0.37-0.58) and 0.39 vs 0.24 for senior reader, respectively. There was also a significant lower confidence level of the junior radiologist in MRI FIGO staging for non-expert center examinations (p 0.003). CONCLUSION: Accuracy in the FIGO 2009 staging and quality assessment are higher for MR examinations performed from expert centers than in non-expert centers. A systematic second opinion by radiologists in expert centers should be proposed before pre-treatment multidisciplinary consultation.