A novel, reproducible, and objective method for volumetric magnetic resonance imaging assessment of enhancing glioblastoma

Kanaly, Charles W.; Mehta, Ankit I.; Ding, Dale; Hoang, Jenny K.; Kranz, Peter G.; Herndon, James E.; Coan, April; Crocker, Ian; Waller, Anthony F.; Friedman, Allan H.; Reardon, David A.; Sampson, John H.

doi:10.3171/2014.4.jns121952

Cited by 29 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such advances include visual tracing of the tumor perimeter (planimetry method) 7,8 ; computer-assisted, threshold-based methods 8,9 ; and fully automated, computer facilitated methods. [10][11][12] Since the original Macdonald criteria were developed, new criteria have been proposed to assess therapeutic responses in both human and veterinary neuro-oncology pa-…”

Section: Conclusion and Clinical Relevancementioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of visual metric and planimetry methods for brain tumor measurement in dogs

Thomson

Haynes

Pluhar

2016

ajvr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE To compare the orthogonal diameter (visual metric) method against a manual perimeter tracing (planimetry) method to measure volume of brain tumors in dogs by use of MRI scans. SAMPLE 22 sets of MRI brain scans pertaining to 22 client-owned dogs with histologically confirmed glioma. PROCEDURES MRI scans were reviewed by 2 operators, and scans revealing tumors with a degree of gadolinium enhancement that allowed discrimination between tumor tissue and healthy parenchyma were used. Each operator calculated tumor volume for each set of scans twice by use of visual metric and planimetry methods. Inter- and intraoperator variability were assessed by calculation of an agreement index (AI). RESULTS Mean ± SD intraoperator AIs were 0.79 ± 0.24 for the visual metric method and 0.89 ± 0.17 for the planimetry method. Intraoperator variability for both operators was significantly less when the planimetry method was used than when the visual metric method was used. No significant differences were identified in mean interoperator AI between visual metric (0.68 ± 0.28) and planimetry (0.67 ± 0.31) methods. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE The lower intraoperator variability achieved with the planimetry versus visual metric method should result in more precise volume assessments when the same operator performs multiple volume measurements of brain tumors in dogs. Equivocal results for interoperator variability may have been due to method variance or inadequate preliminary training. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the suitability of planimetry for assessing response to treatment.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion and Clinical Relevancementioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of visual metric and planimetry methods for brain tumor measurement in dogs

Thomson

Haynes

Pluhar

2016

ajvr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For high grade gliomas the Response Assessment in Neuro‐Oncology criteria also subjectively takes into account the T2 or FLAIR area in assessing response. Volumetric assessment methods are yet to be standardized and include using varying software packages …”

Section: Guidelines On Implementation Of Standardized Magnetic Resonamentioning

confidence: 99%

Consensus recommendations on standardized magnetic resonance imaging protocols for multicenter canine brain tumor clinical trials

Packer

Rossmeisl

Kent

et al. 2018

Vet Radiology Ultrasound

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The National Cancer Institute Comparative Brain Tumor Consortium, Patient Outcomes Working Group, propose a consensus document in support of standardized magnetic resonance imaging protocols for canine brain tumor clinical trials. The intent of this manuscript is to address the widely acknowledged need to ensure canine brain tumor imaging protocols are relevant and have sufficient equivalency to translate to human studies such that: (1) multi-institutional studies can be performed with minimal inter-institutional variation, and (2) imaging protocols are consistent with human consensus recommendations to permit reliable translation of imaging data to human clinical trials. Consensus recommendations include pre- and postcontrast three-dimensional T1-weighted images, T2-weighted turbo spin echo in all three planes, T2*-weighted gradient recalled echo, T2-weighted fluid attenuated inversion recovery, and diffusion weighted imaging/diffusion tensor imaging in transverse plane; field of view of ≤150 mm; slice thickness of ≤2 mm, matrix ≥ 256 for two-dimensional images, and 150 or 256 for three-dimensional images.

show abstract

“…Tumor volumes were calculated through semi-automated volumetric analysis using Brainlab software (Brainlab, iPlanNet version 2.3.1.215.1, Munich, Germany) by three observers (a neurosurgeon, a radiologist, and a trained medical student). Previous literature stated the use of this method to be reliable for tumor measurements [4,5]. All observers are skilled in interpreting MR images for brain tumors.…”

Section: Test Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using volumetric analysis, it is possible to quantify the EOR using MR imaging. Prior studies using semi-automated methods for this purpose found a high interobserver agreement [4,5]. However, when manual segmentation is used, a low interobserver agreement in the assessment of tumor resection rates on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is described.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of the neurosurgeons estimation of extent of resection in glioblastoma

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The surgeons' estimate of the extent of resection (EOR) shows little accuracy in previous literature. Considering the developments in surgical techniques of glioblastoma (GBM) treatment, we hypothesize an improvement in this estimation. This study aims to compare the EOR estimated by the neurosurgeon with the EOR determined using volumetric analysis on the postoperative MR scan. Methods Pre-and post-operative tumor volumes were calculated through semi-automatic volumetric assessment by three observers. Interobserver agreement was measured using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). A univariate general linear model was used to study the factors influencing the accuracy of estimation of resection percentage. Results ICC was high for all three measurements: pre-operative tumor volume was 0.980 (0.969-0.987), post-operative tumor volume 0.974 (0.961-0.984), and EOR 0.947 (0.917-0.967). Estimation of EOR by the surgeon showed moderate accuracy and agreement. Multivariable analysis showed a statistically significant effect of operating neurosurgeon (p = 0.01), use of fluorescence (p < 0.001), and resection percentage (p < 0.001) on the accuracy of the EOR estimation. Conclusion All measurements through semi-automatic volumetric analysis show a high interobserver agreement, suggesting this to be a reliable assessment of EOR. We found a moderate reliability of the surgeons' estimate of EOR. Therefore, (early) postoperative MRI scanning for evaluation of EOR remains paramount.

show abstract

A novel, reproducible, and objective method for volumetric magnetic resonance imaging assessment of enhancing glioblastoma

Cited by 29 publications

References 24 publications

Comparison of visual metric and planimetry methods for brain tumor measurement in dogs

Comparison of visual metric and planimetry methods for brain tumor measurement in dogs

Consensus recommendations on standardized magnetic resonance imaging protocols for multicenter canine brain tumor clinical trials

Accuracy of the neurosurgeons estimation of extent of resection in glioblastoma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About