Metastatic Versus Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures on MRI: A Blinded, Multicenter, and Multispecialty Observer Agreement Evaluation
Spanish Back Pain Research Network, Kovacs Foundation, Palma de Mallorca;
Search for other papers by Estanislao Arana in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Unidad de la Espalda Kovacs, Hospital Universitario HLA-Moncloa, Madrid;
Search for other papers by Francisco M. Kovacs in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Puerta de Hierro-Segovia de Arana, Madrid; CIBERESP;
Search for other papers by Ana Royuela in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Radiology, Hospital Universitario Regional de Málaga, Málaga;
Search for other papers by Beatriz Asenjo in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Radiology, Hospital Universitario Regional de Málaga, Málaga;
Search for other papers by Fatima Nagib in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Radiology, Hospital de Manacor, Mallorca;
Search for other papers by Sandra Pérez-Aguilera in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
School of Biomedical Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de Valencia, Valencia;
Search for other papers by María Dejoz in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Radiology, Hospital de Galdakao, Galdakao, Bizkaia;
Search for other papers by Alberto Cabrera-Zubizarreta in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Radiology, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro, Madrid; and
Search for other papers by Yolanda García-Hidalgo in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Radiology, Hospital Son Llàtzer, Palma de Mallorca, Spain.
Search for other papers by Ana Estremera in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by for the Spanish Back Pain Research Network Task Force for the Improvement of Inter-Disciplinary Management of Spinal Metastasis in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background: MRI is assumed to be valid for distinguishing metastatic vertebral fractures (MVFs) from osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs). This study assessed (1) concordance between the image-based diagnosis of MVF versus OVF and the reference (biopsy or follow-up of >6 months), (2) interobserver and intraobserver agreement on key imaging findings and the diagnosis of MVF versus OVF, and (3) whether disclosing a patient’s history of cancer leads to variations in diagnosis, concordance, or agreement. Patients and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included clinical data and imaging from 203 patients with confirmed MVF or OVF provided to 25 clinicians (neurosurgeons, radiologists, orthopedic surgeons, and radiation oncologists). From January 2018 through October 2018, the clinicians interpreted images in conditions as close as possible to routine practice. Each specialist assessed data twice, with a minimum 6-week interval, blinded to assessments made by other clinicians and to their own previous assessments. The kappa statistic was used to assess interobserver and intraobserver agreement on key imaging findings, diagnosis (MVF vs OVF), and concordance with the reference. Subgroup analyses were based on clinicians’ specialty, years of experience, and complexity of the hospital where they worked. Results: For diagnosis of MVF versus OVF, interobserver agreement was fair, whereas intraobserver agreement was substantial. Only the latter improved to almost perfect when a patient’s history of cancer was disclosed. Interobserver agreement for key imaging findings was fair or moderate, whereas intraobserver agreement on key imaging findings was moderate or substantial. Concordance between the diagnosis of MVF versus OVF and the reference was moderate. Results were similar regardless of clinicians’ specialty, experience, and hospital category. Conclusions: When MRI is used to distinguish MVF versus OVF, interobserver agreement and concordance with the reference were moderate. These results cast doubt on the reliability of basing such a diagnosis on MRI in routine practice.
Submitted July 7, 2019; accepted for publication October 7, 2019.
Author contributions: Study concept: Arana, Kovacs. Study design: Arana, Kovacs, Royuela. Data collection: Asenjo, Nagib, Pérez-Aguilera, Dejoz, Cabrera-Zubizarreta, García-Hidalgo, Estremera. Quality assessment and logistics: Arana, Dejoz. Data analysis: Royuela. Guidance on clinical practice of vertebral fractures: Arana. Writing—original draft and revision: Arana, Kovacs, Royuela. Writing—review and editing: All authors. Critical revisions: All authors.
Disclosures: The authors have disclosed that they have not received any financial consideration from any person or organization to support the preparation, analysis, results, or discussion of this article.
Funding: Funding for this work was provided by The Kovacs Foundation.
Supplementary Materials
- Supplemental Materials (PDF 493.70 KB)
© 2019-2024 National Comprehensive Cancer Network