Effect of training on resident inter-reader agreement with American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System.

Abstract

BACKGROUNDThe American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (ACR TI-RADS) was introduced to standardize the ultrasound characterization of thyroid nodules. Studies have shown that ACR-TIRADS reduces unnecessary biopsies and improves consistency of imaging recommendations. Despite its widespread adoption, there are few studies to date assessing the inter-reader agreement amongst radiology trainees with limited ultrasound experience. We hypothesize that in PGY-4 radiology residents with no prior exposure to ACR TI-RADS, a statistically significant improvement in inter-reader reliability can be achieved with a one hour training session.AIMTo evaluate the inter-reader agreement of radiology residents in using ACR TI-RADS before and after training.METHODSA single center retrospective cohort study evaluating 50 thyroid nodules in 40 patients of varying TI-RADS levels was performed. Reference standard TI-RADS scores were established through a consensus panel of three fellowship-trained staff radiologists with between 1 and 14 years of clinical experience each. Three PGY-4 radiology residents (trainees) were selected as blinded readers for this study. Each trainee had between 4 to 5 mo of designated ultrasound training. No trainee had received specialized TI-RADS training prior to this study. Each of the readers independently reviewed the 50 testing cases and assigned a TI-RADS score to each case before and after TI-RADS training performed 6 wk apart. Fleiss kappa was used to measure the pooled inter-reader agreement. The relative diagnostic performance of readers, pre- and post-training, when compared against the reference standard.RESULTSThere were 33 females and 7 males with a mean age of 56.6 ± 13.6 years. The mean nodule size was 19 ± 14 mm (range from 5 to 63 mm). A statistically significant superior inter-reader agreement was found on the post-training assessment compared to the pre-training assessment for the following variables: 1. “Shape” (k of 0.09 [slight] pre-training vs 0.67 [substantial] post-training, P < 0.001), 2. “Echogenic foci” (k of 0.28 [fair] pre-training vs 0.45 [moderate] post-training, P = 0.004), 3. ‘TI-RADS level’ (k of 0.14 [slight] pre-training vs 0.36 [fair] post-training, P < 0.001) and 4. ‘Recommendations’ (k of 0.36 [fair] pre-training vs 0.50 [moderate] post-training, P = 0.02). No significant differences between the pre- and post-training assessments were found for the variables 'composition', 'echogenicity' and 'margins'. There was a general trend towards improved pooled sensitivity with TI-RADS levels 1 to 4 for the post-training assessment while the pooled specificity was relatively high (76.6%-96.8%) for all TI-RADS level.CONCLUSIONStatistically significant improvement in inter-reader agreement in the assigning TI-RADS level and recommendations after training is observed. Our study supports the use of dedicated ACR TI-RADS training in radiology residents.