Journal
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY
Volume 35, Issue 3, Pages 498-503Publisher
AMER SOC NEURORADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A3724
Keywords
-
Funding
- Abbott
- Aeterna Zentaris
- Agenus
- Amgen
- Bayer and Onyx
- Boehringer Ingelheim
- Bristol-Myers Squibb
- Celldex
- Genentech
- Keryx Biopharmaceuticals
- Medimmune
- Merck Sharp Dohme
- Millenium
- Northwest Biotherapeutics
- Novartis
- Pfizer
- Plexxicon
- Roche
- Sigma Tau
- Theorum Clinical Research
- Omniprex
- American College of Radiation Oncology
- American Academy of Neurology
- United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties
- [R01CA161404]
- Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro Funding Source: Custom
Ask authors/readers for more resources
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A limitation in postoperative monitoring of patients with glioblastoma is the lack of objective measures to quantify residual and recurrent disease. Automated computer-assisted volumetric analysis of contrast-enhancing tissue represents a potential tool to aid the radiologist in following these patients. In this study, we hypothesize that computer-assisted volumetry will show increased precision and speed over conventional 1D and 2D techniques in assessing residual and/or recurrent tumor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with native glioblastomas with MR imaging performed at 24-48 hours following resection and 2-4 months postoperatively. 1D and 2D measurements were performed by 2 neuroradiologists with Certificates of Added Qualification. Volumetry was performed by using manual segmentation and computer-assisted volumetry, which combines region-based active contours and a level set approach. Tumor response was assessed by using established 1D, 2D, and volumetric standards. Manual and computer-assisted volumetry segmentation times were compared. Interobserver correlation was determined among 1D, 2D, and volumetric techniques. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients were analyzed. Discrepancy in disease status between 1D and 2D compared with computer-assisted volumetry was 10.3% (3/29) and 17.2% (5/29), respectively. The mean time for segmentation between manual and computer-assisted volumetry techniques was 9.7 minutes and < 1 minute, respectively (P < .01). Interobserver correlation was highest for volumetric measurements (0.995; 95% CI, 0.990-0.997) compared with 1D (0.826; 95% CI, 0.695-0.904) and 2D (0.905; 95% CI, 0.828-0.948) measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Computer-assisted volumetry provides a reproducible and faster volumetric assessment of enhancing tumor burden, which has implications for monitoring disease progression and quantification of tumor burden in treatment trials.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available