Determination of “borderline resectable” pancreatic cancer – A global assessment of 30 shades of grey
Résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive cancer with a poor prognosis. Accurate preoperative assessment using computed tomography (CT) to determine resectability is crucial in ensuring patients are offered the most appropriate therapeutic strategy. Despite the use of classification guidelines, any interobserver variability between reviewing surgeons and radiologists may confound decisions influencing patient treatment pathways. METHODS: In this multicentre observational study, an international group of 96 clinicians (42 hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons and 54 radiologists) were surveyed and asked to report 30 pancreatic CT scans of pancreatic cancer deemed borderline at respective multidisciplinary meetings (MDM). The degree of interobserver agreement in resectability among radiologists and surgeons was assessed and subgroup regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: Interobserver variability between reviewers was high with no unanimous agreement. Overall interobserver agreement was fair with a kappa value of 0.32 with a higher rate of agreement among radiologists over surgeons. CONCLUSION: Interobserver variability among radiologists and surgeons globally is high, calling into question the consistency of clinical decision making for patients with PDAC and suggesting that central review may be required for studies of neoadjuvant or adjuvant approaches in future as well as ongoing quality control initiatives, even amongst experts in the field.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Determination of “borderline resectable” pancreatic cancer – A global assessment of 30 shades of grey
- Date Crossref
- 01/11/2023
- Éditeur
- Elsevier BV
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.