Fernando A Ferrer1, Katherine W Herbst2, Conrad V Fernandez3, Geetika Khanna4, Jeffrey S Dome5, Arlene Naranjo6, Elizabeth A Mullen7, James I Geller8, Eric J Gratias9, Robert Shamberger10, Michael Ritchey11, Peter F Ehrlich12. 1. Connecticut Children's Medical Center, University of Connecticut Medical School, 282 Washington Street, Hartford, CT 06106, USA. Electronic address: fferrer@connecticutchildrens.org. 2. Connecticut Children's Medical Center, University of Connecticut Medical School, 282 Washington Street, Hartford, CT 06106, USA. Electronic address: kherbst@connecticutchildrens.org. 3. IWK Health Center, Halifax, NS, Canada. Electronic address: Conrad.Fernandez@iwk.nshealth.ca. 4. Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. Electronic address: khannag@mir.wustl.edu. 5. Children's National Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA. Electronic address: JDome@childrensnational.org. 6. Children's Oncology Group Statistics & Data Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. Electronic address: anaranjo@cog.ufl.edu. 7. Children's Hospital of Boston, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: Elizabeth_Mullen@dfci.harvard.edu. 8. Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA. Electronic address: james.geller@cchmc.org. 9. Children's Hospital at Erlanger, Chattanooga, TN, USA. Electronic address: egratiasmd@comcast.net. 10. Children's Hospital of Boston, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: robert.shamberger@childrens.harvard.edu. 11. Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ, USA. Electronic address: michael.ritchey@gmail.com. 12. University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Electronic address: pehrlich@med.umich.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patients with stage I Wilms tumor, age ≤ 2 years, tumor ≤ 550 g may not require therapy beyond nephrectomy. This study's aims were to determine: (1) if a linear relationship exists between tumor weight and computed tomography (CT) estimated volume; (2) describe the accuracy of a slope-intercept equation in estimating weight; and (3) determine the potential impact of weight estimation on port placement decisions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Tumor weight and port placement information were abstracted from 105 patients, age ≤ 2 years, with tumors ± 550 g, enrolled in COG AREN03B2. One radiologist estimated tumor size from CT scan. Prolate ellipse volume (PEV) was calculated, linear regression performed, slope-intercept equation calculated, equation estimated weight determined, and potential impact of the on port placement evaluated. RESULTS: A strong relationship exists between PEV and weight (R(2) = 0.87). The slope-intercept equation for weight was: weight = 1.04(PEV) + 58.75. Overall median relative error for the equation was 0.9%, and -3% in tumors weighing 350-750 g. Fifty-five ports were placed, 29 in patients with tumor weight ≤ 550 g, and six not placed in patients with tumor weight > 550 g. CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between PEV and weight produced a reliable weight prediction equation. Preoperative consideration of specimen weight may diminish the number of ports placed in this population.
OBJECTIVE:Patients with stage I Wilms tumor, age ≤ 2 years, tumor ≤ 550 g may not require therapy beyond nephrectomy. This study's aims were to determine: (1) if a linear relationship exists between tumor weight and computed tomography (CT) estimated volume; (2) describe the accuracy of a slope-intercept equation in estimating weight; and (3) determine the potential impact of weight estimation on port placement decisions. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Tumor weight and port placement information were abstracted from 105 patients, age ≤ 2 years, with tumors ± 550 g, enrolled in COG AREN03B2. One radiologist estimated tumor size from CT scan. Prolate ellipse volume (PEV) was calculated, linear regression performed, slope-intercept equation calculated, equation estimated weight determined, and potential impact of the on port placement evaluated. RESULTS: A strong relationship exists between PEV and weight (R(2) = 0.87). The slope-intercept equation for weight was: weight = 1.04(PEV) + 58.75. Overall median relative error for the equation was 0.9%, and -3% in tumors weighing 350-750 g. Fifty-five ports were placed, 29 in patients with tumor weight ≤ 550 g, and six not placed in patients with tumor weight > 550 g. CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between PEV and weight produced a reliable weight prediction equation. Preoperative consideration of specimen weight may diminish the number of ports placed in this population.
Authors: S Nawaratne; R Fabiny; J E Brien; J Zalcberg; W Cosolo; A Whan; D J Morgan Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 1997 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Robert C Shamberger; James R Anderson; Norman E Breslow; Elizabeth J Perlman; J Bruce Beckwith; Michael L Ritchey; Gerald M Haase; Milton Donaldson; Paul E Grundy; Robert Weetman; Max J Coppes; Marcio Malogolowkin; Patricia D Shearer; Morris Kletzel; Patrick R M Thomas; Roger Macklis; Vicki Huff; Douglas A Weeks; Daniel M Green Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: D M Green; N E Breslow; J B Beckwith; M L Ritchey; R C Shamberger; G M Haase; G J D'Angio; E Perlman; M Donaldson; P E Grundy; R Weetman; M J Coppes; M Malogolowkin; P Shearer; P Coccia; M Kletzel; P R Thomas; R Macklis; G Tomlinson; V Huff; R Newbury; D Weeks Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-09-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: R S Breiman; J W Beck; M Korobkin; R Glenny; O E Akwari; D K Heaston; A V Moore; P C Ram Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1982-02 Impact factor: 3.959