Inter- and Intrareader Agreement of NI-RADS in the Interpretation of Surveillance Contrast-Enhanced CT after Treatment of Oral Cavity and Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Chi AC,
   2. Day TA,
   3. Neville BW

   . Oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: an update. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65:401–21 doi:10.3322/caac.21293 pmid:26215712

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.
   1. Chaturvedi AK,
   2. Engels EA,
   3. Pfeiffer RM, et al

   . Human papillomavirus and rising oropharyngeal cancer incidence in the United States. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:4294–301 doi:10.1200/JCO.2011.36.4596 pmid:21969503

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   1. Bray F,
   2. Ferlay J,
   3. Soerjomataram I, et al

   . Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:394–424 doi:10.3322/caac.21492 pmid:30207593

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Rivera C

   . Essentials of oral cancer. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2015;8:11884–94 pmid:26617944

   PubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Seeburg DP,
   2. Baer AH,
   3. Aygun N

   . Imaging of patients with head and neck cancer: from staging to surveillance. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2018;30:421–33 doi:10.1016/j.coms.2018.06.004 pmid:30143307

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Queiroz MA,
   2. Hullner M,
   3. Kuhn F, et al

   . PET/MRI and PET/CT in follow-up of head and neck cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2014;41:1066–75 doi:10.1007/s00259-014-2707-9 pmid:24577950

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Pfister DG,
   2. Spencer S,
   3. Brizel DM, et al

   ; National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Head and neck cancers, Version 2.2014: clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2014;12:1454–87 doi:10.6004/jnccn.2014.0142 pmid:25313184

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   1. D’Orsi CJ,
   2. Kopans DB

   . Mammography interpretation: the BI-RADS method. Am Fam Physician 1997;55:1548–50, 52 pmid:9105186

   PubMed
9. 9.
   1. Barentsz JO,
   2. Richenberg J,
   3. Clements R, et al

   . ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746–57 doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y pmid:22322308

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Purysko AS,
    2. Remer EM,
    3. Coppa CP, et al

    . LI-RADS: a case-based review of the new categorization of liver findings in patients with end-stage liver disease. Radiographics 2012;32:1977–95 doi:10.1148/rg.327125026 pmid:23150853

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Aiken AH,
    2. Rath TJ,
    3. Anzai Y, et al

    . ACR Neck Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (NI-RADS): A White Paper of the ACR NI-RADS Committee. J Am Coll Radiology 2018;15:1097–108 doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2018.05.006 pmid:29983244

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.
    1. Krieger DA,
    2. Hudgins PA,
    3. Nayak GK, et al

    . Initial performance of NI-RADS to predict residual or recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:1193–99 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5157 pmid:28364010

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    1. Aiken AH,
    2. Farley A,
    3. Baugnon KL, et al

    . Implementation of a novel surveillance template for head and neck cancer: Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System (NI-RADS). J Am Coll Radiol 2016;13:743–46.e1 doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2015.09.032 pmid:26577876

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Schmidt RC

    . Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric statistical techniques. Decision Sciences 1997;28:763–74 doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01330.x

    CrossRefWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    1. Landis JR,
    2. Koch GG

    . The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–74 doi:10.2307/2529310

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    1. Irshad A,
    2. Leddy R,
    3. Ackerman S, et al

    . Effects of changes in BI-RADS Density Assessment Guidelines (fourth versus fifth edition) on breast density assessment: intra- and interreader agreements and density distribution. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;207:1366–71 doi:10.2214/AJR.16.16561 pmid:27656766

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Smith CP,
    2. Harmon SA,
    3. Barrett T, et al

    . Intra- and interreader reproducibility of PI-RADSv2: a multireader study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019;49:1694–703 doi:10.1002/jmri.26555 pmid:30575184

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Hsu D,
    2. Chokshi FH,
    3. Hudgins PA, et al

    . Predictive value of first posttreatment imaging using standardized reporting in head and neck cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019;161:978–85 doi:10.1177/0194599819865235 pmid:31331239

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Wangaryattawanich P,
    2. Branstetter BF,
    3. Hughes M, et al

    . Negative predictive value of NI-category 2 in the first posttreatment FDG-PET/CT in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:1884–88 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5767 pmid:30166429

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
20. 20.↵
    1. Grimm LJ,
    2. Anderson AL,
    3. Baker JA, et al

    . Interobserver variability between breast imagers using the fifth edition of the BI-RADS MRI lexicon. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;204:1120–24 doi:10.2214/AJR.14.13047 pmid:25905951

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Rosenkrantz AB,
    2. Ginocchio LA,
    3. Cornfeld D, et al

    . Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS Version 2 Lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology 2016;280:793–804 doi:10.1148/radiol.2016152542 pmid:27035179

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Griessenauer CJ,
    2. Miller JH,
    3. Agee BS, et al

    . Observer reliability of arteriovenous malformations grading scales using current imaging modalities. J Neurosurg 2014;120:1179–87 doi:10.3171/2014.2.JNS131262 pmid:24628617

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Hripcsak G,
    2. Heitjan DF

    . Measuring agreement in medical informatics reliability studies. J Biomed Inform 2002;35:99–110 doi:10.1016/S1532-0464(02)00500-2

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
24. 24.↵
    1. Zapf A,
    2. Castell S,
    3. Morawietz L, et al

    . Measuring inter-rater reliability for nominal data - which coefficients and confidence intervals are appropriate? BMC Med Res Methodol 2016;16:93 doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0200-9 pmid:27495131

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Kendall MG,
    2. Babington Smith B

    . The problem of m rankings. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 1939;10:275–87 doi:10.1214/aoms/1177732186

    CrossRef