Revised Atlanta classification for CT pancreatic and peripancreatic collections in the first month of acute pancreatitis: interobserver agreement
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.
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).
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.
• 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.
KeywordsAcute necrotizing pancreatitis Multidetector computed tomography Interobserver variability Outcomes assessment Pancreatitis
Acute necrotic collection
Acute peripancreatic fluid collection
Interstitial edematous pancreatitis
Revised Atlanta classification
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
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.
Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.
• performed at one institution
- 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
- 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
- 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