Literature DB >> 19996757

Intra- and interobserver variability of linear and volumetric measurements of brain metastases using contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.

Hans-Christian Bauknecht1, Valentina C Romano, Patrik Rogalla, Randolf Klingebiel, Claudia Wolf, Lars Bornemann, Bernd Hamm, Patrick A Hein.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the intra- and interobserver variability of diameter and semiautomated volume measurements of brain metastases on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) data.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: About 75 MRI staging examinations of patients with metastasized renal cell carcinoma, thyroid cancer, or malignant melanoma (mean age, 56 years; range, 40-75 years) were included. Patients had been examined with a routine MRI protocol, including a CE 3D T1-weighted MP-RAGE sequence (1-mm slice thickness). MRI data were retrospectively analyzed using the OncoTREAT segmentation system (MeVis, Bremen, Germany, version 1.6). Volume of 355 enhancing brain metastases included in the analysis as well as the largest diameter according to Response Evaluation Criteria for Solid Tumors were measured by 2 radiologists. Intra- and interobserver variability was calculated.
RESULTS: Metastases (n = 355) had a mean diameter of 12.2 mm (range, 3.4-44.3 mm) and a mean volume of 1.4 cm(3) (range, 12-25.1 cm(3)). With respect to interobserver variability analysis revealed broader limits of agreement for response evaluation criteria for solid tumor measurements of all lesions (range, +/-27.8%-+/-33.0%; unsigned mean: 0.2%-2.5%) than for volume measurements (range, +/-21.4%-+/-23.3%; unsigned mean, 0.1%-0.3%) with statistically significant differences between diameter and volume measurements (P <or= 0.001). Limits of agreement were similar for intra- and interobserver comparisons.
CONCLUSION: Semiautomated segmentation of brain metastases on the basis of CE-MRI yielded reproducible volume measurements with a lower variability compared with linear measurements. Volumetry of contrast-enhancing brain metastases appears to be a suitable method for size determination in oncologic follow-up imaging.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 19996757     DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181c02ed5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Radiol        ISSN: 0020-9996            Impact factor:   6.016


  17 in total

1.  Assessment of intra-observer variability in measurement of high-grade brain tumors.

Authors:  James M Provenzale; Michael C Mancini
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2012-03-10       Impact factor: 4.130

2.  Proposed response assessment and endpoints for meningioma clinical trials: report from the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group.

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

3.  Consensus recommendations for a standardized brain tumor imaging protocol for clinical trials in brain metastases.

Authors:  Timothy J Kaufmann; Marion Smits; Jerrold Boxerman; Raymond Huang; Daniel P Barboriak; Michael Weller; Caroline Chung; Christina Tsien; Paul D Brown; Lalitha Shankar; Evanthia Galanis; Elizabeth Gerstner; Martin J van den Bent; Terry C Burns; Ian F Parney; Gavin Dunn; Priscilla K Brastianos; Nancy U Lin; Patrick Y Wen; Benjamin M Ellingson
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2020-06-09       Impact factor: 12.300

4.  A phase II trial of everolimus, temozolomide, and radiotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma: NCCTG N057K.

Authors:  Daniel J Ma; Evanthia Galanis; S Keith Anderson; David Schiff; Timothy J Kaufmann; Patrick J Peller; Caterina Giannini; Paul D Brown; Joon H Uhm; Steven McGraw; Kurt A Jaeckle; Patrick J Flynn; Keith L Ligon; Jan C Buckner; Jann N Sarkaria
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2014-12-18       Impact factor: 12.300

5.  In vivo characterization of changing blood-tumor barrier permeability in a mouse model of breast cancer metastasis: a complementary magnetic resonance imaging approach.

Authors:  Dean B Percy; Emeline J Ribot; Yuhua Chen; Catherine McFadden; Carmen Simedrea; Patricia S Steeg; Ann F Chambers; Paula J Foster
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 6.016

Review 6.  [Ablative therapy of small renal masses].

Authors:  M C Kriegmair; N Wagener; S J Diehl; N Rathmann
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 0.639

7.  Longitudinal volume analysis from computed tomography: Reproducibility using adrenal glands as surrogate tumors.

Authors:  Nicolas D Prionas; Marijo A Gillen; John M Boone
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2010-07

Review 8.  Assessment of Brain Tumor Response: RANO and Its Offspring.

Authors:  Sylvia C Eisele; Patrick Y Wen; Eudocia Q Lee
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2016-07

9.  Use of radiomics for the prediction of local control of brain metastases after stereotactic radiosurgery.

Authors:  Andrei Mouraviev; Jay Detsky; Arjun Sahgal; Mark Ruschin; Young K Lee; Irene Karam; Chris Heyn; Greg J Stanisz; Anne L Martel
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2020-06-09       Impact factor: 12.300

Review 10.  Radiologists and Clinical Trials: Part 1 The Truth About Reader Disagreements.

Authors:  Annette M Schmid; David L Raunig; Colin G Miller; Richard C Walovitch; Robert W Ford; Michael O'Connor; Guenther Brueggenwerth; Josy Breuer; Liz Kuney; Robert R Ford
Journal:  Ther Innov Regul Sci       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 1.778

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.