Advertisement

Revised Atlanta classification for CT pancreatic and peripancreatic collections in the first month of acute pancreatitis: interobserver agreement

  • Neesmah Badat
  • Ingrid MilletEmail author
  • Lucie Corno
  • Wassef Khaled
  • Isabelle Boulay-Coletta
  • Marc Zins
Emergency Radiology

Abstract

Purpose

To assess interobserver agreement when using the revised Atlanta classification (RAC) to categorize pancreatic and peripancreatic collections during the first month of acute pancreatitis (AP), and to correlate type of collection to outcome.

Material and methods

This retrospective study of 115 consecutive patients admitted for 123 AP episodes, 178 CTs performed within the first month showed peripancreatic abnormalities. Each AP episode was classified as mild, moderately severe, or severe based on the RAC. Two radiologists, blinded to clinical data, used RAC criteria to retrospectively categorize the collections as acute peripancreatic fluid collections (APFC) or acute necrotic collections (ANC). Interobserver agreement was assessed based on Cohen’s κ statistics and compared according to CT timing.

Results

Interobserver agreement for categorizing peripancreatic collections was moderate (κ = 0.45) and did not improve with time to CT (κ values, 0.53 < day 3, 0.34 on days 3–6, and 0.43 ≥ day 7). For detecting parenchymal necrosis, interobserver agreement was also moderate (κ = 0.45). AP was less severe in patients with APFC versus ANC (p = 0.04).

Conclusion

Our finding of moderate interobserver agreement when using the RAC to categorize pancreatic and peripancreatic collections by CT indicates that the accurate diagnosis of APFC or ANC by CT in the first 4 weeks after symptom onset is often challenging.

Key Points

• Interobserver agreement was moderate for categorizing peripancreatic collections.

• Interobserver agreement did not improve with time from onset to CT.

• Interobserver agreement was moderate for detecting parenchymal necrosis.

Keywords

Acute necrotizing pancreatitis Multidetector computed tomography Interobserver variability Outcomes assessment Pancreatitis 

Abbreviations

ANC

Acute necrotic collection

AP

Acute pancreatitis

APFC

Acute peripancreatic fluid collection

CT

Computed tomography

IEP

Interstitial edematous pancreatitis

RAC

Revised Atlanta classification

WON

Walled-off necrosis

Notes

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Marc Zins.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• observational

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Lankisch PG, Apte M, Banks PA (2015) Acute pancreatitis. Lancet 386(9988):85–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bradley EL 3rd (1992) A clinically based classification system for acute pancreatitis. Summary of the International Symposium on Acute Pancreatitis, Atlanta, Ga, September 11 through 13, 1992. Arch Surg 128:586–590Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Besselink MG, van Santvoort HC, Bollen TL et al (2006) Describing computed tomography findings in acute necrotizing pancreatitis with the Atlanta classification: an interobserver agreement study. Pancreas 33:331–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    da Costa DW, Boerma D, van Santvoort HC et al (2014) Staged multidisciplinary step-up management for necrotizing pancreatitis. Br J Surg 101:e65–e79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shyu JY, Sainani NI, Sahni VA et al (2014) Necrotizing pancreatitis: diagnosis, imaging, and intervention. Radiographics 34:1218–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thoeni RF (2015) Imaging of acute pancreatitis. Radiol Clin North Am 53:1189–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Banks PA, Bollen TL, Dervenis C et al (2013) Classification of acute pancreatitis—2012: revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut 62:102–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thoeni RF (2012) The revised Atlanta classification of acute pancreatitis: its importance for the radiologist and its effect on treatment. Radiology 262:751–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Murphy KP, O’Connor OJ, Maher MM (2014) Updated imaging nomenclature for acute pancreatitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:W464–W469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Forsmark CE, Vege SS, Wilcox CM (2016) Acute pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 375:1972–1981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bakker OJ, van Santvoort H, Besselink MG et al (2013) Extrapancreatic necrosis without pancreatic parenchymal necrosis: a separate entity in necrotising pancreatitis? Gut 62:1475–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang M, Wei A, Guo Q et al (2016) Clinical outcomes of combined necrotizing pancreatitis versus extrapancreatic necrosis alone. Pancreatology 16:57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bollen TL (2016) Acute pancreatitis: international classification and nomenclature. Clin Radiol 71:121–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sternby H, Verdonk RC, Aguilar G et al (2016) Significant inter-observer variation in the diagnosis of extrapancreatic necrosis and type of pancreatic collections in acute pancreatitis - an international multicenter evaluation of the revised Atlanta classification. Pancreatology 16:791–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Singh VK, Bollen TL, Wu BU et al (2011) An assessment of the severity of interstitial pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 9:1098–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morgan DE, Baron TH, Smith JK, Robbin ML, Kenney PJ (1997) Pancreatic fluid collections prior to intervention: evaluation with MR imaging compared with CT and US. Radiology 203:773–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kamal A, Singh VK, Akshintala VS et al (2015) CT and MRI assessment of symptomatic organized pancreatic fluid collections and pancreatic duct disruption: an interreader variability study using the revised Atlanta classification 2012. Abdom Imaging 40:1608–1616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yadav AK, Sharma R, Kandasamy D et al (2015) Perfusion CT: can it predict the development of pancreatic necrosis in early stage of severe acute pancreatitis? Abdom Imaging 40:488–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tsuji Y, Yamamoto H, Yazumi S et al (2007) Perfusion computerized tomography can predict pancreatic necrosis in early stages of severe acute pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 5:1484–1492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tsuji Y, Takahashi N, Fletcher JG et al (2014) Subtraction color map of contrast-enhanced and unenhanced CT for the prediction of pancreatic necrosis in early stage of acute pancreatitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:W349–W356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marin D, Boll DT, Mileto A, Nelson RC (2014) State of the art: dual-energy CT of the abdomen. Radiology 271:327–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Spanier BW, Nio Y, van der Hulst RW, Tuynman HA, Dijkgraaf MG, Bruno MJ (2010) Practice and yield of early CT scan in acute pancreatitis: a Dutch Observational Multicenter Study. Pancreatology 10:222–228Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neesmah Badat
    • 1
  • Ingrid Millet
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Lucie Corno
    • 1
  • Wassef Khaled
    • 1
  • Isabelle Boulay-Coletta
    • 1
  • Marc Zins
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyHôpital Saint-JosephParisFrance
  2. 2.Department of Medical ImagingCHU LapeyronieMontpellier Cedex 5France
  3. 3.Montpellier UniversityMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations