4.3 Review

Analysis of vestibular schwannoma size: A literature review on consistency with measurement techniques

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSURGERY
卷 138, 期 -, 页码 72-77

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2015.08.003

关键词

Vestibular schwannoma; Acoustic neuroma; Tumor size; Linear measurement; Volumetric measurement

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Vestibular schwannoma (VS) tumor size, a significant prognostic indicator, is closely analyzed in patients undergoing observation or treatment. It has historically been reported in terms of linear size; however, volumetric assessments can now be performed routinely. We examine the use of described measurement techniques in large published clinical series to assess their consistency. Methods: Computerized searches of the MEDLINE database (Pubmed) from 1975 to August 2014 were conducted with the purpose of identifying large series describing the management of VSs. Articles that reported tumor size measurements were included if they described greater than 600 patients. Results: 19 studies were found fitting the inclusion criteria, consisting of large retrospective studies with sample sizes ranging from 614 to 2991. A total of 17 studies reported linear measurements, while 2 studies reported volumetric assessments of tumor size. Significant variations were found regarding methods for linear measurement. Furthermore, several papers did not provide any details regarding the measurement technique. Inclusion of intracanalicular portions of the tumor was highly variable. Volume assessments were performed by segmented volume analysis. Conclusions: Among the large published series on VSs, significant variation exists regarding the utilized measurement technique to assess size. Volumetric assessments have the greatest clinical utility, sensitivity and accuracy in measuring tumor size and growth. Standardization of volume assessments will provide the best method for producing consistent literature findings. Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据