Interobserver Agreement Among Endosonographers for the Diagnosis of Neoplastic Versus Non-neoplastic Pancreatic Cystic Lesions
Overview
Pharmacology
Radiology
Authors
Affiliations
Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the degree of agreement among endosonographers for EUS diagnosis of neoplastic versus non-neoplastic pancreatic cystic lesions and the specific type of cystic lesion.
Methods: Videotapes of EUS procedures from 31 consecutive cases of a range of histopathologically proven lesions, including mucinous cystic neoplasm, serous cystadenoma, neuroendocrine tumor, intraductal papillary mucinous tumor, and pseudocyst, were used to make a study videotape, which was reviewed by 8 experienced endosonographers. The reviewers, blinded to clinical and surgical histopathology results, reviewed each case for the presence or absence of the following features: abnormality of pancreatic duct and parenchyma, margins, solid component, debris, and septations. They were asked to identify each lesion as neoplastic or non-neoplastic and to give a specific diagnosis for each lesion.
Results: There was fair agreement between endosonographers for diagnosis of neoplastic versus non-neoplastic lesions (kappa = 0.24). Agreement for individual types of lesions was moderately good for serous cystadenomas (kappa = 0.46) but fair for the remainder. Agreement was moderately good for presence or absence of solid component (kappa = 0.43); fair for presence or absence of abnormal pancreatic duct (kappa = 0.29), debris (kappa = 0.21), and septations (kappa = 0.30); and slight for presence or absence of margins (kappa = 0.01) and abnormal pancreatic parenchyma (kappa = 0.01). Accuracy rates of EUS for the diagnosis of neoplastic versus non-neoplastic lesions ranged from 40% to 93%.
Conclusions: There is little more than chance interobserver agreement among experienced endosonographers for diagnosis of neoplastic versus non-neoplastic, specific type, and EUS features of pancreatic cystic lesions.
Artificial Intelligence in Pancreatic Imaging: A Systematic Review.
Podina N, Gheorghe E, Constantin A, Cazacu I, Croitoru V, Gheorghe C United European Gastroenterol J. 2025; 13(1):55-77.
PMID: 39865461 PMC: 11866320. DOI: 10.1002/ueg2.12723.
Kotb A, Hafeji Z, Jesry F, Lintern N, Pathak S, Smith A Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(22).
PMID: 39594758 PMC: 11592681. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16223803.
Serous Cystadenoma: A Review on Diagnosis and Management.
Ning K, Salamone A, Manos L, Lafaro K, Afghani E J Clin Med. 2023; 12(23).
PMID: 38068358 PMC: 10707442. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12237306.
Xiao C, Xu Y, Sun F, Li C, Liu R Am J Case Rep. 2023; 24:e939324.
PMID: 37170482 PMC: 10184465. DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.939324.
Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in the Evaluation of Pancreatic Cystic Neoplasms: A Concise Review.
Rangwani S, Juakiem W, Krishna S, El-Dika S Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13(4).
PMID: 36832193 PMC: 9955397. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13040705.