A comparison of treating physician versus independent core lab assessments of post-aneurysm treatment imaging outcomes: an analysis of prospectively collected data from a randomized trial

OBJECTIVE Aneurysm occlusion has been used as surrogate marker of aneurysm treatment efficacy. Aneurysm occlusion scales are used to evaluate the outcome of endovascular aneurysm treatment and to monitor recurrence. These scales, however, require subjective interpretation of imaging data, which can reduce the utility and reliability of these scales and the validity of clinical studies regarding aneurysm occlusion rates. Use of a core lab with independent blinded reviewers has been implemented to enhance the validity of occlusion rate assessments in clinical trials. The degree of agreement between core labs and treating physicians has not been well studied with prospectively collected data. METHODS In this study, the authors analyzed data from the Hydrogel Endovascular Aneurysm Treatment (HEAT) trial to assess the interrater agreement between the treating physician and the blinded core lab. The HEAT trial included 600 patients across 46 sites with intracranial aneurysms treated with coiling. The treating site and the core lab independently reviewed immediate postoperative and follow-up imaging (3-12 and 18-24 months, respectively) using the RaymondRoy occlusion classification (RROC) scale, Meyer scale, and recanalization survey. A post hoc analysis was performed to calculate interrater reliability using Cohen's kappa. Further analysis was performed to assess whether degree of agreement varied on the basis of various factors, including scale used, timing of imaging, size of the aneurysm, imaging modality, location of the aneurysm, dome-to-neck ratio, and rupture status. RESULTS Minimal interrater agreement was noted between the core lab reviewers and the treating physicians for assessing aneurysm occlusion using the RROC grading scale (k = 0.39, 95% CI 0.38-0.40) and Meyer scale (k = 0.23, 95% CI 0.14-0.38). The degree of agreement between groups was slightly better but still weak for assessing recanalization (k = 0.45, 95% CI 0.38-0.52). Factors that significantly improved degree of agreement were scales with fewer varifrom risk of poor interrater agreement. This supports the use of independent core labs for validation of outcome data to minimize reporting bias. Use of outcome tools with fewer point categories is likely to provide better interrater reliability. Therefore, the outcome assessment tools are ideal for clinical outcome assessment provided that they are sensitive enough to detect a clinically significant change.