• Estanislao Arana, Francisco M Kovacs, Ana Royuela, Beatriz Asenjo, Fatima Nagib, Sandra Pérez-Aguilera, María Dejoz, Alberto Cabrera-Zubizarreta, Yolanda García-Hidalgo, Ana Estremera, and Spanish Back Pain Research Network Task Force for the Improvement of Inter-Disciplinary Management of Spinal Metastasis.
• aDepartment of Radiology, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia.
• J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020 Mar 1; 18 (3): 267-273.

BackgroundMRI 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 MethodsThis 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.ResultsFor 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.ConclusionsWhen 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.

15 keywords...

hide…