44 Chapter 3 Staging variables (derived from ESGAR structured reporting templates)7 Average accuracy (min-max) IOA (Krippendorf’s alpha + 95%CI) Reference standard (i.e. results of expert reference for the 7 test cases) Pre-course Post-course Pre-course Post-course Lymph nodes, tumour deposits and EMVI N-stage (N0, N+) 80% (36%-100%) 82% (40%-100%) 0.68 (0.64-0.73) 0.66 (0.61-0.71) 3 N0, 4 N+ Total number of mesorectal nodes (= average difference in no compared to expert reference) 5.4 (0-18) 4.9 (0-17) 0.58 (0.56-0.61) 0.64 (0.62-0.66) Range 2-12 Number of suspicious mesorectal nodes (=average difference in no compared to expert reference 1.1 (0-8) 0.9 (0-7) 0.63 (0.59-0.66) 0.79 (0.77-0.81)** Range 0-8 Number of suspicious extramesorectal nodes (= average difference in no compared to expert reference) 0.4 (0-6) 0.3 (0-4) 0.56 (0.62-0.49) 0.69 (0.63-0.74) Range 0-2 Tumour deposits (no, yes) 84% (26%-100%) 91% (48%-100%) 0.46 (0.22-0.70) 0.39 (0.01-0.75) 7 no EMVI (no, yes) 74% (48%-100%) 91% (60%-100%) 0.49 (0.43-0.55) 0.64 (0.59-0.69)** 5 no, 2 yes Note, unless otherwise indicated numbers represent the average agreement for the 42 readers with the expert reference. Results are based on assessment of the seven test cases, including five primary staging cases and two restaging cases after neoadjuvant treatment. ^Response was only assessed for the restaging cases *indicates a significant (p<0.05) difference calculated using a multilogistic regression model (pre-test vs post-test) ** indicates a significant difference based on a 95%CI post-test that does not overlap with the 95%CI pre-test Table 2 Continued
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw