Advertisement

Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 44, Issue 2, pp 391–397 | Cite as

Inter-radiologist agreement using Society of Abdominal Radiology-American Gastroenterological Association (SAR-AGA) consensus nomenclature for reporting CT and MR enterography in children and young adults with small bowel Crohn disease

  • Mitchell A. ReesEmail author
  • Jonathan R. Dillman
  • Christopher G. Anton
  • Mantosh S. Rattan
  • Ethan A. Smith
  • Alexander J. Towbin
  • Bin Zhang
  • Andrew T. Trout
Article

Abstract

Purpose

To assess inter-radiologist agreement using the Society of Abdominal Radiology-American Gastroenterological Association (SAR-AGA) consensus recommendations for reporting CT/MR enterography exams in pediatric and young adult small bowel Crohn disease (CD).

Methods

Institutional review board approval was obtained for this HIPAA-compliant retrospective investigation; the requirement for informed consent was waived. 25 CT and 25 MR enterography exams performed in children and young adults (age range: 6–23 years) between January 2015 and April 2017 with a distribution of ileal CD severity (phenotype) were identified: normal or chronic CD without active inflammation (40%), active inflammatory CD (20%), stricturing CD (20%), and penetrating CD (20%). Five fellowship-trained pediatric radiologists, blinded to one another, documented key imaging findings and standardized impressions based on SAR-AGA consensus recommendations. Inter-radiologist agreement was evaluated using Fleiss’ multi-rater kappa statistic (κ) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Inter-radiologist agreement was moderate for all key imaging findings except presence of ulcerations (κ 0.37 [95% CI 0.28–0.46]) and sacculations (κ 0.31 [95% CI 0.23–0.40]). Agreement for standardized impressions was substantial for stricturing disease (κ 0.79 [95% CI 0.70–0.87]) and moderate for presence of inflammation (κ 0.49 [95% CI 0.44–0.56]) and penetrating disease (κ 0.58 [95% CI 0.49–0.67]). No significant difference in agreement was found between CT and MRI.

Conclusions

Agreement among five pediatric radiologists was moderate to substantial for SAR-AGA standardized impressions and fair to moderate for key imaging findings of pediatric and young adult CD.

Keywords

Inflammatory bowel disease Crohn disease Enterography Pediatric Standardized reporting Inter-reader agreement 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This study was not funded.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

The requirement for informed consent was waived by the institutional review board.

Supplementary material

261_2018_1743_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 14 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Fletcher JG, Fidler JL, Bruining DH, Huprich JE (2011) New concepts in intestinal imaging for inflammatory bowel diseases. Gastroenterology 140(6):1795–1806.  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2011.02.013 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Panes J, Bouhnik Y, Reinisch W, et al. (2013) Imaging techniques for assessment of inflammatory bowel disease: joint ECCO and ESGAR evidence-based consensus guidelines. J Crohns Colitis 7(7):556–585.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crohns.2013.02.020 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Towbin AJ, Sullivan J, Denson LA, Wallihan DB, Podberesky DJ (2013) CT and MR enterography in children and adolescents with inflammatory bowel disease. Radiographics 33(7):1843–1860.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.337105140 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dillman JR, Trout AT, Smith EA (2016) MR enterography: how to deliver added value. Pediatr Radiol 46(6):829–837.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-016-3555-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mollard BJ, Smith EA, Dillman JR (2015) Pediatric MR enterography: technique and approach to interpretation-how we do it. Radiology 274(1):29–43.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14122449 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Orscheln ES, Dillman JR, Towbin AJ, Denson LA, Trout AT (2017) Penetrating Crohn disease: does it occur in the absence of stricturing disease? Abdom Radiol .  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1398-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bodily KD, Fletcher JG, Solem CA, et al. (2006) Crohn disease: mural attenuation and thickness at contrast-enhanced CT enterography–correlation with endoscopic and histologic findings of inflammation. Radiology 238(2):505–516.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2382041159 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ordás I, Rimola J, Rodríguez S, et al. (2014) Accuracy of magnetic resonance enterography in assessing response to therapy and mucosal healing in patients with Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 146(2):374.e371–382.e371.  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2013.10.055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bruining DH, Siddiki HA, Fletcher JG, et al. (2012) Benefit of computed tomography enterography in Crohn’s disease: effects on patient management and physician level of confidence. Inflamm Bowel Dis 18(2):219–225.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ibd.21683 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Higgins PD, Caoili E, Zimmermann M, et al. (2007) Computed tomographic enterography adds information to clinical management in small bowel Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 13(3):262–268.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ibd.20013 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deepak P, Fletcher JG, Fidler JL, et al. (2016) Radiological response is associated with better long-term outcomes and is a potential treatment target in patients with small bowel Crohn’s disease. Am J Gastroenterol 111(7):997–1006.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2016.177 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bruining DH, Zimmermann EM, Loftus EV, et al. (2018) Consensus recommendations for evaluation, interpretation, and utilization of computed tomography and magnetic resonance enterography in patients with small bowel Crohn’s disease. Radiology 154(4):1172–1194.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018171737 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reiner BI, Knight N, Siegel EL (2007) Radiology reporting, past, present, and future: the radiologist’s perspective. J Am Coll Radiol 4(5):313–319.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2007.01.015 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sistrom CL, Langlotz CP (2005) A framework for improving radiology reporting. J Am Coll Radiol 2(2):159–167.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2004.06.015 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weiss DL, Langlotz CP (2008) Structured reporting: patient care enhancement or productivity nightmare? Radiology 249(3):739–747.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2493080988 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Larson DB, Towbin AJ, Pryor RM, Donnelly LF (2013) Improving consistency in radiology reporting through the use of department-wide standardized structured reporting. Radiology 267(1):240–250.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12121502 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    RSNA (2009) RSNA radiology reporting initiative. http://reportingwiki.rsna.org/. Accessed 6 December 2017
  18. 18.
    Wildman-Tobriner B, Allen BC, Bashir MR, et al. (2017) Structured reporting of CT enterography for inflammatory bowel disease: effect on key feature reporting, accuracy across training levels, and subjective assessment of disease by referring physicians. Abdom Radiol .  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1136-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wildman-Tobriner B, Allen BC, Davis JT, et al. (2017) Structured reporting of magnetic resonance enterography for pediatric Crohn’s disease: effect on key feature reporting and subjective assessment of disease by referring physicians. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 46(2):110–114.  https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2016.12.001 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hawkins CM, Hall S, Hardin J, Salisbury S, Towbin AJ (2012) Prepopulated radiology report templates: a prospective analysis of error rate and turnaround time. J Digit Imaging 25(4):504–511.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-012-9455-9 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hawkins CM, Hall S, Zhang B, Towbin AJ (2014) Creation and implementation of department-wide structured reports: an analysis of the impact on error rate in radiology reports. J Digit Imaging 27(5):581–587.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-014-9699-7 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schwartz LH, Panicek DM, Berk AR, Li Y, Hricak H (2011) Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting. Radiology 260(1):174–181.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11101913 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. (2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap): a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42(2):377–381.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gale HI, Sharatz SM, Taphey M, et al. (2017) Comparison of CT enterography and MR enterography imaging features of active Crohn disease in children and adolescents. Pediatr Radiol 47(10):1321–1328.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-017-3876-z PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Church PC, Greer MC, Cytter-Kuint R, et al. (2017) Magnetic resonance enterography has good inter-rater agreement and diagnostic accuracy for detecting inflammation in pediatric Crohn disease. Pediatr Radiol 47(5):565–575.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-017-3790-4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Booya F, Fletcher JG, Huprich JE, et al. (2006) Active Crohn disease: CT findings and interobserver agreement for enteric phase CT enterography. Radiology 241(3):787–795.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2413051444 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wallihan DB, Podberesky DJ, Sullivan J, et al. (2015) Diagnostic performance and dose comparison of filtered back projection and adaptive iterative dose reduction three-dimensional CT enterography in children and young adults. Radiology 276(1):233–242.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14140468 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wallihan DB, Towbin AJ, Denson LA, Salisbury S, Podberesky DJ (2012) Inflammatory bowel disease in children and adolescents: assessing the diagnostic performance and interreader agreement of magnetic resonance enterography compared to histopathology. Acad Radiol 19(7):819–826.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2012.02.023 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tielbeek JA, Makanyanga JC, Bipat S, et al. (2013) Grading Crohn disease activity with MRI: interobserver variability of MRI features, MRI scoring of severity, and correlation with Crohn disease endoscopic index of severity. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201(6):1220–1228.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.10341 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tielbeek JA, Bipat S, Boellaard TN, Nio CY, Stoker J (2014) Training readers to improve their accuracy in grading Crohn’s disease activity on MRI. Eur Radiol 24(5):1059–1067.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3111-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Puylaert CA, Tielbeek JA, Bipat S, et al. (2016) Long-term performance of readers trained in grading Crohn disease activity using MRI. Acad Radiol 23(12):1539–1544.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2016.08.006 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyCincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical CenterCincinnatiUSA
  2. 2.Division of Biostatistics and EpidemiologyCincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical CenterCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations