Keywords:
Metastases, Observer performance, Contrast agent-intravenous, CT, Oncology, Liver, Abdomen
Authors:
M. Gajic Dobrosavljevic, J. STEVANOVIC, P. P. Milenkovic; Belgrade/RS
DOI:
10.1594/ecr2013/C-0906
Conclusion
The current study enrolled the patients who suffered from liver metastatic disease.
Approximately,
liver metastatic disease is diagnosed in 25% of all new patients at time of primary diagnoses of colorectal carcinoma while up to a quarter of others would develop liver metastases in the course of the illness (3,
4).
Colorectal carcinoma is acknowledged as the second leading cause of total cancer-related death in the Europe Union and the European Region (5,
6).
In fact,
the majority of deaths related to colorectal carcinoma are ascribed to the liver metastatic disease (3,
4,
7).
Thus,
the testing and development of the existing estimation methodology represents obligation as well as necessity in order to expand existing knowledge and improve understanding of metastatic disease.
Nowadays RECIST and RECIST-like quantitative standards are present in routine clinical practice predominantly of abdominal imaging.
However,
formal RECIST guidelines are still rarely applied in ordinary interpretations apart from clinical trials (2).
While qualitative interpretations require skillfulness at description and characterization,
the process of measurement recording by RECIST criteria is an easily understandable procedure that requires minimal training and could be performed even by radiology residents.
Therefore,
the integration of quantitative standards in everyday practice of clinical centres would ensure not only reliable radiological response evaluation but also easier introduction of less experienced radiologist in clinical work.
The existence of intra- and inter-observer variability in radiological reports is already acknowledged in literature (8,
9).
The current study analysed expressed variability of both experienced radiologist and the first-year radiology resident.
However,
the applied statistical tests did not detect any intra- or inter-observer variability demonstrating simplicity of the applied criteria.
The results also suggested that early training of residents and involvement of RECIST guidelines in their practice could prevent future RECIST related discrepancy,
ensuring in the same time consistency in the interpretation results which is necessary for meaningful follow up as well as for comparisons with other patients.
Overall,
the conducted analyses revealed the importance of RECIST 1.1 criteria in routine clinical practice especially involving young radiologists.