Abstract
Introduction: contrast MRI is considered an alternate exam for the diagnosis and classification of the severity of pancreatitis, and has shown better performance that contrast CT. It has been described for cases in which non-contrast MRI is also a reliable modality. Objective: to estimate the inter-observer concordance for the diagnosis of pancreatic necrosis using the T1 MRI sequence without contrast; correlate the MRI vs. the contrast CT data; measure the signal intensity of the necrotic parenchyma. Methodology: concordance and correlation trial. 110 cases with a suspected diagnosis of pancreatitis were distributed with random codes and differentiated by categories. 2 sub-specialist radiologists with 4 and 8 years of experience respectively participated. The presence, percentage severity, and the localization of necrosis were established in the T1 FS sequence. The Kappa coefficient and the tetrachoric correlation were used. Results: the inter-observer global kappa was 0,54 (95 % CI: 0,38 – 0,70), the agreement for necrosis free category was 65.96 %, for the 30-50 % category was 33,33 % and for the >50 % category was 86,67 %. The CT correlation was rho=0,73 (EE 0.10). The mean signal intensity in the necrotic foci was 69,61 (range 14 - 157) and in the parenchyma was 161,79 (range 101-273) (pp<0,05). Discussion: the level of agreement for the determination and classification of subjective necrosis in T1 was moderate, with a positive correlation between the CT and the non-contrast MRI. An objective difference was shown in the signal intensity of the necrotic parenchyma.
References
Flack V, Afifi A, Lachenbruch P, Schouten H. Sample size determinatios for the two rater kappa statistic. Psychometrika. 1988;53(3):321-325. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294215
Kottner J, Audige L, Brorson S, Donner A, Gajewski BJ, Hróbjartsson A, et al. Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed. Int J Nurs Stud [Internet]. 2011 Jun [cited 2013 May 31];48(6):661-71. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ pii/S0020748911000368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.01.016
Streiner D, Norman G. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to their Development and Use. 3rd ed. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2003.
Kundel HL, Polansky M. Measurement of Observer Agreement. Radiology. 2003;228:303-8. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2282011860
Viremouneix L, Monneuse O, Gautier G, Gruner L, Giorgi R, Allaouchiche B, et al. Prospective evaluation of nonenhanced MR imaging in acute pancreatitis. J Magn Reson Imaging [Internet]. 2007 Aug [cited 2014 Apr 3];26(2):331-8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17654731. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21037
Thoeni RF. The revised Atlanta classification of acute pancreatitis: its importance for the radiologist and its effect on treatment. Radiology [Internet]. 2012 Mar;262(3):751-64. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22357880. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11110947
Arvanitakis M, Delhaye M, De Maertelaere V, Bali M, Winant C, Coppens E, et al. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the
assessment of acute pancreatitis. Gastroenterology [Internet]. 2004 Mar [cited 2014 Apr 3];126(3):715-23. Available from: http://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0016508503020195.
Lecesne R, Taourel P, Bret PM, Atri M, Reinhold C. Acute pancreatitis: interobserver agreement and correlation of CT and MR cholangiopancreatography with outcome. Radiology [Internet]. 1999 Jun;211(3):727-35. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10352598. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.211.3.r99jn08727
Martin D, Karabulut N, Yang M, McFadden D. High signal peripancreatic fat on fat-suppressed spoiled gradient echo imaging in acute pancreatitis: Preliminary evaluation of the prognostic significance. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2003;18(1):49-58. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.10333
Kim YK, Kim CS, Han YM. Role of Fat-Suppressed T1-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Predicting Severity and Prognosis of Acute Pancreatitis: An Intraindividual Comparison With multidetector computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2009;33(5):651-6." https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0b013e3181979282