RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare tumor volume in a VX2 rabbit model as calculated using semiautomatic tumor segmentation from C-arm cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) to the actual tumor volume. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty VX2 tumors in 20 adult male New Zealand rabbits (one tumor per rabbit) were imaged with CBCT (using an intra-arterial contrast medium injection) and MDCT (using an intravenous contrast injection). All tumor volumes were measured using semiautomatic three-dimensional volumetric segmentation software. The software uses a region-growing method using non-Euclidean radial basis functions. After imaging, the tumors were excised for pathologic volume measurement. The imaging-based tumor volume measurements were compared to the pathologic volumes using linear regression, with Pearson's test, and correlated using Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: Average tumor volumes were 3.5 ± 1.6 cm(3) (range, 1.4-7.2 cm(3)) on pathology, 3.8 ± 1.6 cm(3) (range, 1.3-7.3 cm(3)) on CBCT, and 3.9 ± 1.6 (range, 1.8-7.5 cm(3)) on MDCT (P < .001). A strong correlation between volumes on pathology and CBCT and also with MDCT was observed (Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.993 and 0.996, P < .001, for CBCT and MDCT, respectively). Bland-Altman analysis showed that MDCT tended to overestimate tumor volume, and there was stronger agreement for tumor volume between CBCT and pathology than with MDCT, possibly because of the intra-arterial contrast injection. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor volume as measured using semiautomatic tumor segmentation software showed a strong correlation with the "real volume" measured on pathology. The segmentation software on CBCT and MDCT can be a useful tool for volumetric hepatic tumor assessment.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare tumor volume in a VX2 rabbit model as calculated using semiautomatic tumor segmentation from C-arm cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) to the actual tumor volume. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty VX2 tumors in 20 adult male New Zealand rabbits (one tumor per rabbit) were imaged with CBCT (using an intra-arterial contrast medium injection) and MDCT (using an intravenous contrast injection). All tumor volumes were measured using semiautomatic three-dimensional volumetric segmentation software. The software uses a region-growing method using non-Euclidean radial basis functions. After imaging, the tumors were excised for pathologic volume measurement. The imaging-based tumor volume measurements were compared to the pathologic volumes using linear regression, with Pearson's test, and correlated using Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: Average tumor volumes were 3.5 ± 1.6 cm(3) (range, 1.4-7.2 cm(3)) on pathology, 3.8 ± 1.6 cm(3) (range, 1.3-7.3 cm(3)) on CBCT, and 3.9 ± 1.6 (range, 1.8-7.5 cm(3)) on MDCT (P < .001). A strong correlation between volumes on pathology and CBCT and also with MDCT was observed (Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.993 and 0.996, P < .001, for CBCT and MDCT, respectively). Bland-Altman analysis showed that MDCT tended to overestimate tumor volume, and there was stronger agreement for tumor volume between CBCT and pathology than with MDCT, possibly because of the intra-arterial contrast injection. CONCLUSIONS:Tumor volume as measured using semiautomatic tumor segmentation software showed a strong correlation with the "real volume" measured on pathology. The segmentation software on CBCT and MDCT can be a useful tool for volumetric hepatic tumor assessment.
Authors: Srinivasa R Prasad; Kartik S Jhaveri; Sanjay Saini; Peter F Hahn; Elkan F Halpern; James E Sumner Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Chikako Suzuki; Michael R Torkzad; Hans Jacobsson; Gunnar Aström; Anders Sundin; Thomas Hatschek; Hirofumi Fujii; Lennart Blomqvist Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Sebastian Keil; Florian F Behrendt; Sven Stanzel; Michael Sühling; Alexander Koch; Jhenee Bubenzer; Georg Mühlenbruch; Andreas H Mahnken; Rolf W Günther; Marco Das Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-06-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Julius Chapiro; Rafael Duran; MingDe Lin; John D Werner; Zhijun Wang; Rüdiger Schernthaner; Lynn Jeanette Savic; Mark L Lessne; Jean-François Geschwind; Kelvin Hong Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Susanne Smolka; Julius Chapiro; Wilfred Manzano; John Treilhard; Eric Reiner; Yanhong Deng; Yan Zhao; Bernd Hamm; James S Duncan; Bernhard Gebauer; MingDe Lin; Jean-François Geschwind Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2017-06-07 Impact factor: 1.605