Virtual reality volumetric rendering versus cross-sectional imaging for pancreatic cancer resectability assessment: a pilot randomized controlled reader study.
단면연구
1/5 보강
PICO 자동 추출 (휴리스틱, conf 3/4)
유사 논문P · Population 대상 환자/모집단
추출되지 않음
I · Intervention 중재 / 시술
Virtual reality volumetric rendering
C · Comparison 대조 / 비교
cross
O · Outcome 결과 / 결론
[TRIAL REGISTRATION] DRKS00033932 (German Clinical Trials Register), registered prospectively. [SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION] The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42234-026-00202-2.
[BACKGROUND] Current imaging assessment for pancreatic cancer resectability demonstrates problematic inter-observer variability, with only fair-to-moderate agreement among experienced raters.
APA
Eisenträger K, Saribeyoglu K, et al. (2026). Virtual reality volumetric rendering versus cross-sectional imaging for pancreatic cancer resectability assessment: a pilot randomized controlled reader study.. Bioelectronic medicine, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42234-026-00202-2
MLA
Eisenträger K, et al.. "Virtual reality volumetric rendering versus cross-sectional imaging for pancreatic cancer resectability assessment: a pilot randomized controlled reader study.." Bioelectronic medicine, vol. 12, no. 1, 2026.
PMID
41796386 ↗
Abstract 한글 요약
[BACKGROUND] Current imaging assessment for pancreatic cancer resectability demonstrates problematic inter-observer variability, with only fair-to-moderate agreement among experienced raters. Virtual reality technology offers stereoscopic three-dimensional visualization that may improve diagnostic accuracy and agreement. However, optimal visualization strategies for clinical adoption remain unclear.
[METHODS] Ten hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons from two high-volume centers were randomized 1:1 to assess twelve contrast-enhanced CT cases using either VR volumetric rendering or CSI. Primary outcomes included inter-rater agreement, diagnostic accuracy against expert reference standard, assessment time, and surgeon confidence. Statistical analysis employed Fleiss’ κ for inter-rater agreement and two-sided Mann–Whitney U tests on surgeon-level summary measures for between-group comparisons.
[RESULTS] CSI display on 2D screens achieved substantial inter-rater agreement for resectability assessment (κ = 0.609) while VR demonstrated only slight agreement (κ = 0.127). Diagnostic accuracy was superior with CSI (84.7% vs. 79.7%), with the most pronounced difference in resectability determination (83.3% vs. 58.3%, = 0.033). VR users reported significantly lower confidence (4.85 ± 1.15 vs. 6.32 ± 0.77, = 0.028). Assessment times were comparable between groups (median 313.5 s vs. 327.5 s, = 1.00).
[CONCLUSIONS] In this preliminary investigation, our VR visualization strategy demonstrated lower diagnostic accuracy and inter-rater agreement than CSI. However, prior studies suggest that VR systems employing alternative, hybrid visualization approaches may improve inter-rater agreement, indicating that visualization strategy, rather than VR technology per se, is the primary determinant of utility.
[TRIAL REGISTRATION] DRKS00033932 (German Clinical Trials Register), registered prospectively.
[SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION] The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42234-026-00202-2.
[METHODS] Ten hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons from two high-volume centers were randomized 1:1 to assess twelve contrast-enhanced CT cases using either VR volumetric rendering or CSI. Primary outcomes included inter-rater agreement, diagnostic accuracy against expert reference standard, assessment time, and surgeon confidence. Statistical analysis employed Fleiss’ κ for inter-rater agreement and two-sided Mann–Whitney U tests on surgeon-level summary measures for between-group comparisons.
[RESULTS] CSI display on 2D screens achieved substantial inter-rater agreement for resectability assessment (κ = 0.609) while VR demonstrated only slight agreement (κ = 0.127). Diagnostic accuracy was superior with CSI (84.7% vs. 79.7%), with the most pronounced difference in resectability determination (83.3% vs. 58.3%, = 0.033). VR users reported significantly lower confidence (4.85 ± 1.15 vs. 6.32 ± 0.77, = 0.028). Assessment times were comparable between groups (median 313.5 s vs. 327.5 s, = 1.00).
[CONCLUSIONS] In this preliminary investigation, our VR visualization strategy demonstrated lower diagnostic accuracy and inter-rater agreement than CSI. However, prior studies suggest that VR systems employing alternative, hybrid visualization approaches may improve inter-rater agreement, indicating that visualization strategy, rather than VR technology per se, is the primary determinant of utility.
[TRIAL REGISTRATION] DRKS00033932 (German Clinical Trials Register), registered prospectively.
[SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION] The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42234-026-00202-2.
🏷️ 키워드 / MeSH 📖 같은 키워드 OA만
🏷️ 같은 키워드 · 무료전문 — 이 논문 MeSH/keyword 기반
- Prostate Cancer Care for Men with an Intellectual Disability: A Population-based Cohort Study of Symptoms, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Survival.
- Clinical and Liquid Biomarkers of 20-Year Prostate Cancer Risk in Men Aged 45 to 70 Years.
- Association between polygenic risk scores and cardiovascular events in prostate cancer patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy in Han Chinese.
- Diagnostic accuracy of Ga-PSMA PET/CT versus multiparametric MRI for preoperative pelvic invasion in the patients with prostate cancer.
- Comprehensive analysis of androgen receptor splice variant target gene expression in prostate cancer.
- Clinical Presentation and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Surgery for Thyroid Cancer.