Structured Reporting of Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance in the Staging of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Delphi Consensus Proposal
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Panel Expert
2.2. Selection of the Delphi Domains and Items
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Structured Report
3.2. Consensus Agreement
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA A Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Izzo, F.; Granata, V.; Fusco, R.; D’Alessio, V.; Petrillo, A.; Lastoria, S.; Piccirillo, M.; Albino, V.; Belli, A.; Nasti, G.; et al. A multicenter randomized controlled prospective study to assess efficacy of laparoscopic electrochemotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced pancreatic Cancer. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 4011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Granata, V.; Grassi, R.; Fusco, R.; Belli, A.; Palaia, R.; Carrafiello, G.; Miele, V.; Petrillo, A.; Izzo, F. Local ablation of pancreatic tumors: State of the art and future perspectives. World J. Gastroenterol. 2021, 27, 3413–3428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Granata, V.; Grassi, R.; Fusco, R.; Galdiero, R.; Setola, S.V.; Palaia, R.; Belli, A.; Silvestro, L.; Cozzi, D.; Brunese, L.; et al. Pancreatic cancer detection and characterization: State of the art and radiomics. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2021, 25, 3684–3699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- AlMasri, S.S.; Zenati, M.S.; Desilva, A.; Nassour, I.; Boone, B.A.; Singhi, A.D.; Bartlett, D.L.; Liotta, L.A.; Espina, V.; Loughran, P.; et al. Encouraging long-term survival following autophagy inhibition using neoadjuvant hydroxychloroquine and gemcitabine for high-risk patients with resectable pancreatic carcinoma. Cancer Med. 2021, 10, 7233–7241, Epub ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Izzo, F.; Granata, V.; Fusco, R.; D’Alessio, V.; Petrillo, A.; Lastoria, S.; Piccirillo, M.; Albino, V.; Belli, A.; Tafuto, S.; et al. Clinical phase I/II study: Local disease control and survival in locally advanced pancreatic cancer treated with electrochemotherapy. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Iyengar, S.; Nevala-Plagemann, C.; Garrido-Laguna, I. Updates on adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment strategies for surgically resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Ther. Adv. Med. Oncol. 2021, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Granata, V.; Grassi, R.; Fusco, R.; Setola, S.V.; Palaia, R.; Belli, A.; Miele, V.; Brunese, L.; Petrillo, A.; Izzo, F. Assessment of ablation therapy in pancreatic cancer: The radiologist’s challenge. Front. Oncol. 2020, 10, 2666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Higashi, M.; Tanabe, M.; Okada, M.; Furukawa, M.; Iida, E.; Ito, K. Influence of fat deposition on T1 mapping of the pancreas: Evaluation by dual-flip-angle MR imaging with and without fat suppression. Radiol. Med. 2020, 125, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, H.K.; Park, M.-S.; Choi, M.; Shin, J.; Lee, S.S.; Jeong, W.K.; Hwang, S.H.; Choi, S.H. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of CT imaging for assessing resectability of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant therapy: Importance of CT criteria. Abdom. Radiol. 2021, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cen, C.; Liu, L.; Li, X.; Wu, A.; Liu, H.; Wang, X.; Wu, H.; Wang, C.; Han, P.; Wang, S. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma at CT: A combined nomogram model to preoperatively predict cancer stage and survival outcome. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 1980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, J.; Yang, L.; Zhou, Z.; Zhang, D.; Han, W.; Zhang, Q.; Peng, Y. Performance evaluation of two iterative reconstruction algorithms, MBIR and ASIR, in low radiation dose and low contrast dose abdominal CT in children. Radiol. Med. 2020, 125, 918–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Granata, V.; Fusco, R.; Catalano, O.; Setola, S.V.; Castelguidone, E.D.L.D.; Piccirillo, M.; Palaia, R.; Grassi, R.; Granata, F.; Izzo, F.; et al. Multidetector computer tomography in the pancreatic adenocarcinoma assessment: An update. Infect. Agents Cancer 2016, 11, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Granata, V.; Fusco, R.; Sansone, M.; Grassi, R.; Maio, F.; Palaia, R.; Tatangelo, F.; Botti, G.; Grimm, R.; Curley, S.; et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of pancreatic cancer with quantitative parameter extraction by means of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, diffusion kurtosis imaging and intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging. Ther. Adv. Gastroenterol. 2020, 13, 1756284819885052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKinney, M.; Griffin, M.O.; Tolat, P.P. Multimodality imaging for the staging of pancreatic cancer. Surg. Oncol. Clin. N. Am. 2021, 30, 621–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Al-Hawary, M.M.; Francis, I.R.; Chari, S.T.; Fishman, E.; Hough, D.M.; Lu, D.S.; Macari, M.; Megibow, A.; Miller, F.H.; Mortele, K.J.; et al. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma radiology reporting template: Consensus statement of the Society of Abdominal Radiology and the American Pancreatic Association. Radiology 2014, 270, 248–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- European Society of Radiology (ESR). ESR paper on structured reporting in radiology. Insights Imaging 2018, 9, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Granata, V.; Caruso, D.; Grassi, R.; Cappabianca, S.; Reginelli, A.; Rizzati, R.; Masselli, G.; Golfieri, R.; Rengo, M.; Regge, D.; et al. Structured reporting of rectal cancer staging and restaging: A consensus proposal. Cancers 2021, 13, 2135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Faggioni, L.; Coppola, F.; Ferrari, R.; Neri, E.; Regge, D. Usage of structured reporting in radiological practice: Results from an Italian online survey. Eur. Radiol. 2017, 27, 1934–1943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neri, E.; Coppola, F.; Larici, A.R.; Sverzellati, N.; Mazzei, M.A.; Sacco, P.; Dalpiaz, G.; Feragalli, B.; Miele, V.; Grassi, R. Structured reporting of chest CT in COVID-19 pneumonia: A consensus proposal. Insights Imaging 2020, 11, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bosmans, J.M.; Weyler, J.J.; Parizel, P.M. Structure and content of radiology reports, a quantitative and qualitative study in eight medical centers. Eur. J. Radiol. 2009, 72, 354–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Heikkinen, K.; Loyttyniemi, M.; Kormano, M. Structure and content of 400 CT reports in four teaching hospitals using a new, Windows-based software tool. Acta Radiol. 2000, 41, 102–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naik, S.S.; Hanbidge, A.; Wilson, S.R. Radiology reports: Examining radiologist and clinician preferences regarding style and content. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2001, 176, 591–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wallis, A.; McCoubrie, P. The radiology report—Are we getting the message across? Clin. Radiol. 2011, 66, 1015–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bosmans, J.M.; Peremans, L.; Menni, M.; De Schepper, A.M.; Duyck, P.O.; Parizel, P.M. Structured reporting: If, why, when, how-and at what expense? Results of a focus group meeting of radiology professionals from eight countries. Insights Imaging 2012, 3, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Weiss, D.L.; Langlotz, C.P. Structured reporting: Patient care enhancement or productivity nightmare? Radiology 2008, 249, 739–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Granata, V.; Pradella, S.; Cozzi, D.; Fusco, R.; Faggioni, L.; Coppola, F.; Grassi, R.; Maggialetti, N.; Buccicardi, D.; Lacasella, G.V.; et al. Computed tomography structured reporting in the staging of lymphoma: A Delphi consensus proposal. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 4007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiorini, F.; Granata, A.; Battaglia, Y.; Karaboue, M.A.A. Talking about medicine through mass media. G. Ital. Nefrol. Organo Uff. Soc. Ital. Nefrol. 2019, 36, 2019-vol1. [Google Scholar]
- Available online: https://sirm.org (accessed on 15 September 2021).
- Kahn, C.E.; Genereaux, B.; Langlotz, C.P. Conversion of radiology reporting templates to the MRRT standard. J. Digit. Imaging 2015, 28, 528–536, PMCID:PMC4570901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Becker, G. Creating comparability among reliability coefficients: The case of Cronbach Alpha and Cohen Kappa. Psychol. Rep. 2000, 87, 1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Danti, G.; Berti, V.; Abenavoli, E.; Briganti, V.; Linguanti, F.; Mungai, F.; Pradella, S.; Miele, V. Diagnostic imaging of typical lung carcinoids: Relationship between MDCT, 111In-Octreoscan and 18F-FDG-PET imaging features with Ki-67 index. Radiol. Med. 2020, 125, 715–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farchione, A.; Larici, A.R.; Masciocchi, C.; Cicchetti, G.; Congedo, M.T.; Franchi, P.; Gatta, R.; Cicero, S.L.; Valentini, V.; Bonomo, L.; et al. Exploring technical issues in personalized medicine: NSCLC survival prediction by quantitative image analysis-usefulness of density correction of volumetric CT data. Radiol. Med. 2020, 125, 625–635, Epub 2020 Mar 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, G.; Yang, Z.; Gong, L.; Jiang, S.; Wang, L.; Zhang, H. Classification of lung nodules based on CT images using squeeze-and-excitation network and aggregated residual transformations. Radiol. Med. 2020, 125, 374–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Granata, V.; Fusco, R.; Costa, M.; Picone, C.; Cozzi, D.; Moroni, C.; La Casella, G.; Montanino, A.; Monti, R.; Mazzoni, F.; et al. Preliminary report on computed tomography radiomics features as biomarkers to immunotherapy selection in lung adenocarcinoma patients. Cancers 2021, 13, 3992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Granata, V.; Fusco, R.; Barretta, M.L.; Picone, C.; Avallone, A.; Belli, A.; Patrone, R.; Ferrante, M.; Cozzi, D.; Grassi, R.; et al. Radiomics in hepatic metastasis by colorectal cancer. Infect. Agents Cancer 2021, 16, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kirienko, M.; Ninatti, G.; Cozzi, L.; Voulaz, E.; Gennaro, N.; Barajon, I.; Ricci, F.; Carlo-Stella, C.; Zucali, P.; Sollini, M.; et al. Computed Tomography (CT)-derived radiomic features differentiate prevascular mediastinum masses as thymic neoplasms versus lymphomas. Radiol. Med. 2020, 125, 951–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hu, H.-T.; Shan, Q.-Y.; Chen, S.-L.; Li, B.; Feng, S.-T.; Xu, E.-J.; Li, X.; Long, J.-Y.; Xie, X.-Y.; Lu, M.-D.; et al. CT-based radiomics for preoperative prediction of early recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: Technical reproducibility of acquisition and scanners. Radiol. Med. 2020, 125, 697–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nazari, M.; Shiri, I.; Hajianfar, G.; Oveisi, N.; Abdollahi, H.; Deevband, M.R.; Oveisi, M.; Zaidi, H. Noninvasive Fuhrman grading of clear cell renal cell carcinoma using computed tomography radiomic features and machine learning. Radiol. Med. 2020, 125, 754–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fusco, R.; Granata, V.; Mazzei, M.A.; Di Meglio, N.; Del Roscio, D.; Moroni, C.; Monti, R.; Cappabianca, C.; Picone, C.; Neri, E.; et al. Quantitative imaging decision support (QIDSTM) tool consistency evaluation and radiomic analysis by means of 594 metrics in lung carcinoma on chest CT scan. Cancer Control 2021, 28, 1073274820985786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Granata, V.; Fusco, R.; Avallone, A.; De Stefano, A.; Ottaiano, A.; Sbordone, C.; Brunese, L.; Izzo, F.; Petrillo, A. Radiomics-derived data by contrast enhanced magnetic resonance in RAS mutations detection in colorectal liver metastases. Cancers 2021, 13, 453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Granata, V.; Fusco, R.; Risi, C.; Ottaiano, A.; Avallone, A.; De Stefano, A.; Grimm, R.; Grassi, R.; Brunese, L.; Izzo, F.; et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI and diffusion kurtosis imaging to detect RAS mutation in colorectal liver metastasis. Cancers 2020, 12, 2420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Smedley, N.F.; Aberle, D.R.; Hsu, W. Using deep neural networks and interpretability methods to identify gene expression patterns that predict radiomic features and histology in non-small cell lung cancer. J. Med. Imaging (Bellingham) 2021, 8, 031906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreno, S.; Bonfante, M.; Zurek, E.; Cherezov, D.; Goldgof, D.; Hall, L.; Schabath, M. A radiogenomics ensemble to predict EGFR and KRAS mutations in NSCLC. Tomography 2021, 7, 154–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reiner, B.I. Strategies for radiology reporting and communication: Part 4: Quality assurance and education. J. Digit. Imaging 2014, 27, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lu, D.S.; Reber, H.A.; Krasny, R.M.; Kadell, B.M.; Sayre, J. Local staging of pancreatic cancer: Criteria for unresectability of major vessels as revealed by pancreatic-phase, thin- section helical CT. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 1997, 168, 1439–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, J.C.; Lu, D.S. Staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma by imaging studies. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2008, 6, 1301–1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brook, O.R.; Brook, A.; Vollmer, C.M.; Kent, T.S.; Sanchez, N.; Pedrosa, I. Structured reporting of multiphasic CT for pancreatic cancer: Potential effect on staging and surgical planning. Radiology 2015, 274, 464–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcal, L.P.; Fox, P.S.; Evans, D.B.; Fleming, J.B.; Varadhachary, G.R.; Katz, M.H.; Tamm, E.P. Analysis of free-form radiology dictations for completeness and clarity for pancreatic cancer staging. Abdom. Imaging 2015, 40, 2391–2397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grassi, R.; Miele, V.; Giovagnoni, A. Artificial intelligence: A challenge for third millennium radiologist. Radiol. Med. 2019, 124, 241–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Van Assen, M.; Muscogiuri, G.; Caruso, D.; Lee, S.J.; Laghi, A.; De Cecco, C.N. Artificial intelligence in cardiac radiology. Radiol. Med. 2020, 125, 1186–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neri, E.; Coppola, F.; Miele, V.; Bibbolino, C.; Grassi, R. Artificial intelligence: Who is responsible for the diagnosis? Radiol. Med. 2020, 125, 517–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carlos, R.C.; Kahn, C.; Halabi, S. Data science: Big data, machine learning, and artificial intelligence. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2018, 15, 497–498, Erratum in J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2018, 15, 819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morris, M.A.; Saboury, B.; Burkett, B.; Gao, J.; Siegel, E.L. Reinventing radiology: Big data and the future of medical imaging. J. Thorac. Imaging. 2018, 33, 4–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aphinyanaphongs, Y. Big data analyses in health and opportunities for research in radiology. Semin. Musculoskelet. Radiol. 2017, 21, 32–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kansagra, A.P.; Yu, J.-P.J.; Chatterjee, A.R.; Lenchik, L.; Chow, D.S.; Prater, A.B.; Yeh, J.; Doshi, A.M.; Hawkins, C.M.; Heilbrun, M.E.; et al. Big data and the future of radiology informatics. Acad. Radiol. 2016, 23, 30–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauckneht, M.; Albano, D.; Annunziata, S.; Santo, G.; Guglielmo, P.; Frantellizzi, V.; Branca, A.; Ferrari, C.; Vento, A.; Mirabile, A.; et al. Somatostatin receptor PET/CT imaging for the detection and staging of pancreatic NET: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diagnostics 2020, 10, 598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnone, A.; Laudicella, R.; Caobelli, F.; Guglielmo, P.; Spallino, M.; Abenavoli, E.; Martini, A.L.; Filice, R.; Comis, A.D.; Cuzzocrea, M.; et al. Clinical impact of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnostic workup of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A systematic review. Diagnostics 2020, 10, 1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, C.; Sun, X.; Zhao, W.; Wang, R.; Qian, X.; Lei, B.; Wang, L.; Liu, L.; Ruan, M.; Xie, W.; et al. Minor components of micropapillary and solid subtypes in lung invasive adenocarcinoma (</= 3 cm): PET/CT findings and correlations with lymph node metastasis. Radiol. Med. 2020, 125, 257–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avesani, G.; Arshad, M.; Lu, H.; Fotopoulou, C.; Cannone, F.; Melotti, R.; Aboagye, E.; Rockall, A. Radiological assessment of Peritoneal Cancer Index on preoperative CT in ovarian cancer is related to surgical outcome and survival. Radiol. Med. 2020, 125, 770–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Granata, V.; Grassi, R.; Miele, V.; Larici, A.R.; Sverzellati, N.; Cappabianca, S.; Brunese, L.; Maggialetti, N.; Borghesi, A.; Fusco, R.; et al. Structured Reporting of lung cancer staging: A consensus proposal. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Panelist Number | A1. Anthropometric Data | A2. Personal Assessments | A3. Allergies and Adverse Reactions | B1. Clinical Information | C1. Exam Data | C2. Use of Contrast Agent and Study Protocol | C3. Adverse Events | D1. Primary Lesion | D2. Artery | D3. Vein | D4. Biliary Tract | D5. Posterior Foil | D6. Loco-regional Diffusion | D7. Locoregional Lymphadenopathies | D8. Distant Metastasis | D9. Acute Pancreatitis | D10. Pulmonary Embolism | D11. Accessory Finds | D12. Conclusions | Sum |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
2 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 92 |
4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 92 |
5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
7 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 93 |
8 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 94 |
9 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 76 |
10 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
11 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 87 |
12 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
13 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
14 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
15 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
16 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 78 |
17 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
18 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 92 |
19 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
20 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
Mean | 4.75 | 4.60 | 4.70 | 4.85 | 4.80 | 4.90 | 4.80 | 4.95 | 4.85 | 4.90 | 4.85 | 4.90 | 4.95 | 4.95 | 4.85 | 4.90 | 4.85 | 4.90 | 4.95 | 92.20 |
Std | 0.44 | 0.50 | 0.80 | 0.49 | 0.70 | 0.31 | 0.41 | 0.22 | 0.49 | 0.31 | 0.37 | 0.31 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.37 | 0.31 | 0.37 | 0.31 | 0.22 | 5.57 |
Panelist Number | A1. Anthropometric Data | A2. Personal Assessments | A3. Allergies and Adverse Reactions | B1. Clinical Information | C1. Exam Data | C2. Study Protocol | C3. Contrast Agent | C4. Adverse Events | D1. Primary Lesion | D2. Artery | D3. Vein | D4. Biliary Tract | D5. Posterior Foil | D6. Loco-regional Diffusion | D7. Locoregional Lymphadenopathies | D8. Distant Metastasis | D9. Acute Pancreatitis | D11. Accessory Finds | D12. Conclusions | Sum |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 94 |
2 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 89 |
4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 93 |
5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 93 |
6 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 76 |
7 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 91 |
8 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 75 |
9 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 94 |
10 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 93 |
11 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 87 |
12 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 94 |
13 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 76 |
14 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
15 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 86 |
16 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
17 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 93 |
18 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 93 |
19 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
20 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 91 |
Mean | 4.45 | 4.00 | 4.50 | 4.70 | 4.70 | 4.55 | 4.80 | 4.75 | 4.85 | 4.90 | 4.85 | 4.85 | 4.90 | 4.90 | 4.90 | 4.90 | 4.80 | 4.75 | 4.85 | 89.90 |
Std | 0.51 | 0.73 | 0.83 | 0.57 | 0.66 | 1.10 | 0.52 | 0.44 | 0.37 | 0.31 | 0.37 | 0.37 | 0.31 | 0.31 | 0.31 | 0.31 | 0.41 | 0.44 | 0.37 | 6.64 |
Panelist Number | A1. Anthropometric Data | A2. Personal Assessments | A3. Allergies and Adverse Reactions | B1. Clinical Information | C1. Exam Data | C2. Use of Contrast Agent and Study Protocol | C3. Adverse Events | D1. Primary Lesion | D2. Artery | D3. Vein | D4. Biliary Tract | D5. Posterior Foil | D6. Loco-regional Diffusion | D7. Locoregional Lymphadenopathies | D8. Distant Metastasis | D9. Acute Pancreatitis | D10. Pulmonary Embolism | D11. Accessory Finds | D12. Conclusions | Sum |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
2 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 85 |
4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 92 |
7 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 85 |
8 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
9 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 92 |
10 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
11 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
12 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
13 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
14 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
15 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 85 |
16 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
17 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
18 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 91 |
19 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 85 |
20 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
Mean | 4.85 | 4.75 | 4.80 | 4.80 | 4.95 | 4.90 | 4.80 | 4.80 | 4.90 | 4.90 | 4.80 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 4.60 | 4.80 | 4.85 | 5.00 | 92.50 |
Std | 0.37 | 0.44 | 0.62 | 0.62 | 0.22 | 0.31 | 0.62 | 0.62 | 0.31 | 0.31 | 0.41 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.68 | 0.41 | 0.37 | 0.00 | 4.03 |
Panelist Number | A1. Anthropometric Data | A2. Personal Assessments | A3. Allergies and Adverse reactions | B1. Clinical Information | C1. Exam Data | C2. Use of Contrast Agent and Study Protocol | C3. Adverse Events | D1. Primary Lesion | D2. Artery | D3. Vein | D4. Biliary Tract | D5. Posterior Foil | D6. Loco-regional Diffusion | D7. Locoregional Lymphadenopathies | D8. Distant Metastasis | D9. Acute Pancreatitis | D10. Pulmonary Embolism | D11. Accessory Finds | D12. Conclusions | Sum |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
2 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 85 |
4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
7 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 90 |
8 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
9 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 93 |
10 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
11 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
12 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
13 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
14 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
15 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 86 |
16 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
17 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
18 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
19 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 88 |
20 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95 |
Mean | 4.85 | 4.70 | 4.80 | 4.90 | 5.00 | 4.90 | 4.95 | 4.80 | 4.90 | 4.95 | 4.95 | 4.90 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 4.95 | 5.00 | 4.85 | 4.95 | 5.00 | 93.35 |
Std | 0.49 | 0.66 | 0.62 | 0.45 | 0.00 | 0.31 | 0.22 | 0.62 | 0.45 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.31 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.22 | 0.00 | 0.37 | 0.22 | 0.00 | 3.28 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Granata, V.; Morana, G.; D'Onofrio, M.; Fusco, R.; Coppola, F.; Grassi, F.; Cappabianca, S.; Reginelli, A.; Maggialetti, N.; Buccicardi, D.; et al. Structured Reporting of Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance in the Staging of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Delphi Consensus Proposal. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 2033. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11112033
Granata V, Morana G, D'Onofrio M, Fusco R, Coppola F, Grassi F, Cappabianca S, Reginelli A, Maggialetti N, Buccicardi D, et al. Structured Reporting of Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance in the Staging of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Delphi Consensus Proposal. Diagnostics. 2021; 11(11):2033. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11112033
Chicago/Turabian StyleGranata, Vincenza, Giovanni Morana, Mirko D'Onofrio, Roberta Fusco, Francesca Coppola, Francesca Grassi, Salvatore Cappabianca, Alfonso Reginelli, Nicola Maggialetti, Duccio Buccicardi, and et al. 2021. "Structured Reporting of Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance in the Staging of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Delphi Consensus Proposal" Diagnostics 11, no. 11: 2033. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11112033