Logo image
Back
There is poor agreement between the subjective and quantitative adjudication of aneurysm wall enhancement
Journal article   Peer reviewed

There is poor agreement between the subjective and quantitative adjudication of aneurysm wall enhancement

Carlos Dier, Kerby Justin, Sultan Alhajahjeh, Sebastian Sanchez, Linder Wendt, Fernanda Avalos, Elena Sagues, Andres Gudino, Daniela Molina, Navami Shenoy, …
American journal of neuroradiology : AJNR, Vol.46(4), pp.689-697
04/2025
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A8508
PMCID: PMC11979857
PMID: 39317479

View Online

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The determination of Aneurysm wall enhancement (AWE) by human readers on visual inspection alone is subjective and prone to error. A three-dimensional (3D) method for quantifying the aneurysm wall's signal intensity (SI) enables objective determination of AWE. Inter-reader agreement and agreement between subjective and objective determination of AWE were assessed in this study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with saccular intracranial aneurysms (IAs) were imaged with high-resolution MRI. Subjective assessment: Two internal adjudicators visually determined AWE if the degree of enhancement was equal to or higher than the pituitary stalk. An experienced internal neuroradiologist resolved disagreements. This internal adjudication was compared with an external adjudication to assess inter-rater agreement among centers. Objective assessment: The distribution of SI across the aneurysm wall after normalizing the SI to the corpus callosum was determined with an in-house code. The normalized mean SI on post-contrast T1 MRI was defined as 3D-circumferential AWE (3D-CAWE). If the 3D-CAWE value was higher than one, an IA was defined as objectively "enhancing." Inter-rater agreement was analyzed with kappa coefficients. Inter-technique agreement between subjective and objective assessment was performed using kappa statistics. Univariate regressions were performed to identify which morphological characteristics influenced subjective adjudication of enhancement. RESULTS: A total of 113 IAs were analyzed. The agreement of the internal assessment was moderate (k = 0.63), 49.5% of IAs (56) were classified as "enhancing" and 50.5% (57) as "non-enhancing" after consensus. Inter-rater agreement between internal and external adjudication was weak (k = 0.52) for the presence of AWE. There was no agreement between the subjective assessment of AWE and objective 3D-CAWE (k = 0.16, p 0.02). Subjective assessment was less likely to reliably adjudicate enhancement when assessing multiple aneurysms (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.16 -0.97, p 0.04) and IAs larger than > 7 mm (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.09 -0.55, p 0.002) despite being objectively "non-enhancing”. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective adjudication of AWE has poor inter-rater agreement, and no agreement with an objective 3D method of determining AWE. It is also less likely than objective quantification to identify enhancement in aneurysms larger than 7 mm or when multiple aneurysms are present. Objective 3D quantification, such as the technique used in this study, should therefore be considered when assessing AWE, especially in patients with multiple aneurysms and aneurysms larger than 7 mm in size.

Details

Metrics

7 Record Views
Logo image