Sonia Lee

Background Various limitations have impacted research evaluating reader agreement for Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS). Purpose To assess reader agreement of LI-RADS in an international multicenter multireader setting using scrollable images. Materials and Methods This retrospective study used deidentified clinical multiphase CT and MRI and reports with at least one untreated observation from six institutions and three countries; only qualifying examinations were submitted. Examination dates were October 2017 to August 2018 at the coordinating center. One untreated observation per examination was randomly selected using observation identifiers, and its clinically assigned features were extracted from the report. The corresponding LI-RADS version 2018 category was computed as a rescored clinical read. Each examination was randomly assigned to two of 43 research readers who independently scored the observation. Agreement for an ordinal modified four-category LI-RADS scale (LR-1, definitely benign; LR-2, probably benign; LR-3, intermediate probability of malignancy; LR-4, probably hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]; LR-5, definitely HCC; LR-M, probably malignant but not HCC specific; and LR-TIV, tumor in vein) was computed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Agreement was also computed for dichotomized malignancy (LR-4, LR-5, LR-M, and LR-TIV), LR-5, and LR-M. Agreement was compared between research-versus-research reads and research-versus-clinical reads. Results The study population consisted of 484 patients (mean age, 62 years ± 10 [SD]; 156 women; 93 CT examinations, 391 MRI examinations). ICCs for ordinal LI-RADS, dichotomized malignancy, LR-5, and LR-M were 0.68 (95% CI: 0.61, 0.73), 0.63 (95% CI: 0.55, 0.70), 0.58 (95% CI: 0.50, 0.66), and 0.46 (95% CI: 0.31, 0.61) respectively. Research-versus-research reader agreement was higher than research-versus-clinical agreement for modified four-category LI-RADS (ICC, 0.68 vs 0.62, respectively; P = .03) and for dichotomized malignancy (ICC, 0.63 vs 0.53, respectively; P = .005), but not for LR-5 (P = .14) or LR-M (P = .94). Conclusion There was moderate agreement for LI-RADS version 2018 overall. For some comparisons, research-versus-research reader agreement was higher than research-versus-clinical reader agreement, indicating differences between the clinical and research environments that warrant further study. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorials by Johnson and Galgano and Smith in this issue.

The Society of Abdominal Radiology’s Colorectal and Anal Cancer Disease-Focused Panel (DFP) first published a rectal cancer lexicon paper in 2019. Since that time, the DFP has published revised initial staging and restaging reporting templates, and a new SAR user guide to accompany the rectal MRI synoptic report (primary staging). This lexicon update summarizes interval developments, while conforming to the original lexicon 2019 format. Emphasis is placed on primary staging, treatment response, anatomic terminology, nodal staging, and the utility of specific sequences in the MRI protocol. A discussion of primary tumor staging reviews updates on tumor morphology and its clinical significance, T1 and T3 subclassifications and their clinical implications, T4a and T4b imaging findings/definitions, terminology updates on the use of MRF over CRM, and the conundrum of the external sphincter. A parallel section on treatment response reviews the clinical significance of near-complete response and introduces the lexicon of “regrowth” versus “recurrence”. A review of relevant anatomy incorporates updated definitions and expert consensus of anatomic landmarks, including the NCCN’s new definition of rectal upper margin and sigmoid take-off. A detailed review of nodal staging is also included, with attention to tumor location relative to the dentate line and locoregional lymph node designation, a new suggested size threshold for lateral lymph nodes and their indications for use, and imaging criteria used to differentiate tumor deposits from lymph nodes. Finally, new treatment terminologies such as organ preservation, TNT, TAMIS and watch-and-wait management are introduced. This 2023 version aims to serve as a concise set of up-to-date recommendations for radiologists, and discusses terminology, classification systems, MRI and clinical staging, and the evolving concepts in diagnosis and treatment of rectal cancer. Graphical abstract

The purpose was to evaluate the association of sagittal plane gait mechanics with MRI changes in the hip joint over 18‐months. Subjects with and without radiographic hip OA (n = 57) underwent MRI at baseline and 18 months for grading of cartilage lesions, bone marrow lesions (BML), cysts, and labral tears. 3D gait analyses at baseline were used for sagittal plane hip kinematics and kinetics during the stance phase. Subjects were classified as progressors or non‐progressors based on increase in any MRI OA parameter. Multivariate ANOVA were used for differences in sagittal gait parameters between progressors and non‐progressors at baseline while adjusting for age. Logistic regression was used to estimate the probability of being classified as a progressor or non‐progressor with increasing hip flexion while adjusting for age, BMI, sex, and presence of radiographic hip OA. Of the 57, 35 were classified as non‐progressors and 22 were classified as progressors. At baseline, the progressors walked with 4.5° greater hip flexion during early stance (p = 0.021) and 3.5° lesser hip extension in late stance that was nearly significant (p = 0.059). Walking with greater hip flexion at baseline was associated with a greater risk of increase in MRI defined structural changes in the hip joint (Odds Ratio = 1.1, p = 0.038). Greater hip flexion during walking was associated with a risk of structural progression of hip OA. The results may guide future interventions to alter the walking patterns and slow structural hip OA progression.© 2017 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 36:1472–1477, 2018.