OBJECTIVE: Vestibular schwannomas (VS) are common, benign, VIIIth cranial nerve tumors. Treatment in patients with the genetic disorder neurofibromatosis type II (NF2) is complicated by their development of bilateral VS and risk of complete deafness. Intervention decisions consider several clinical factors including tumor size and growth rate evaluated using magnetic resonance imaging. The current study evaluated the relative sensitivity of volumetric versus linear diameter measurement for assessing VS growth rate and progression. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed on 43 magnetic resonance imaging scans acquired longitudinally (range, 2-7 yr) from 10 patients with NF2. Fifteen VS were measured (five patients had unilateral lesions meeting inclusion criteria) using both maximum linear diameter and semiautomated volumetric analysis. Progression was defined according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and its volumetric (cubed linear) equivalent. Measurement techniques were compared by assessing sensitivity to lesion growth. RESULTS: Volumetric measures were significantly more sensitive to VS growth, both for total change and change per year percentages; cubed linear growth measures (proportional to volume growth) underestimated volume growth by 50%. Seven lesions showed progression on volumetric analysis, but two of these did not show progression based on linear measures. Thus, for 29% of lesions showing progression based on volume, linear measures did not detect progression. CONCLUSION: Linear measurements underestimate VS growth rate compared with volumetric measures in NF2 patients. These results provide clear, quantitative proof that diameter measures are not as sensitive to change as volumetric measurements and that volumetric measurements should be strongly considered when making VS treatment decisions.
OBJECTIVE:Vestibular schwannomas (VS) are common, benign, VIIIth cranial nerve tumors. Treatment in patients with the genetic disorder neurofibromatosis type II (NF2) is complicated by their development of bilateral VS and risk of complete deafness. Intervention decisions consider several clinical factors including tumor size and growth rate evaluated using magnetic resonance imaging. The current study evaluated the relative sensitivity of volumetric versus linear diameter measurement for assessing VS growth rate and progression. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed on 43 magnetic resonance imaging scans acquired longitudinally (range, 2-7 yr) from 10 patients with NF2. Fifteen VS were measured (five patients had unilateral lesions meeting inclusion criteria) using both maximum linear diameter and semiautomated volumetric analysis. Progression was defined according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and its volumetric (cubed linear) equivalent. Measurement techniques were compared by assessing sensitivity to lesion growth. RESULTS: Volumetric measures were significantly more sensitive to VS growth, both for total change and change per year percentages; cubed linear growth measures (proportional to volume growth) underestimated volume growth by 50%. Seven lesions showed progression on volumetric analysis, but two of these did not show progression based on linear measures. Thus, for 29% of lesions showing progression based on volume, linear measures did not detect progression. CONCLUSION: Linear measurements underestimate VS growth rate compared with volumetric measures in NF2patients. These results provide clear, quantitative proof that diameter measures are not as sensitive to change as volumetric measurements and that volumetric measurements should be strongly considered when making VS treatment decisions.
Authors: Jaishri O Blakeley; D Gareth Evans; John Adler; Derald Brackmann; Ruihong Chen; Rosalie E Ferner; C Oliver Hanemann; Gordon Harris; Susan M Huson; Abraham Jacob; Michel Kalamarides; Matthias A Karajannis; Bruce R Korf; Victor-Felix Mautner; Andrea I McClatchey; Harry Miao; Scott R Plotkin; William Slattery; Anat O Stemmer-Rachamimov; D Bradley Welling; Patrick Y Wen; Brigitte Widemann; Kim Hunter-Schaedle; Marco Giovannini Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2011-12-02 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Raymond Y Huang; Wenya Linda Bi; Michael Weller; Thomas Kaley; Jaishri Blakeley; Ian Dunn; Evanthia Galanis; Matthias Preusser; Michael McDermott; Leland Rogers; Jeffrey Raizer; David Schiff; Riccardo Soffietti; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Michael Vogelbaum; Damien Weber; David A Reardon; Patrick Y Wen Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Scott R Plotkin; Chris Halpin; Michael J McKenna; Jay S Loeffler; Tracy T Batchelor; Fred G Barker Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Matthias A Karajannis; Geneviève Legault; Mari Hagiwara; Marc S Ballas; Krysten Brown; Annette O Nusbaum; Tsivia Hochman; Judith D Goldberg; Kevin M Koch; John G Golfinos; J Thomas Roland; Jeffrey C Allen Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2012-07-27 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Jaishri O Blakeley; Xiaobu Ye; Dan G Duda; Chris F Halpin; Amanda L Bergner; Alona Muzikansky; Vanessa L Merker; Elizabeth R Gerstner; Laura M Fayad; Shivani Ahlawat; Michael A Jacobs; Rakesh K Jain; Christopher Zalewski; Eva Dombi; Brigitte C Widemann; Scott R Plotkin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-03-14 Impact factor: 44.544