OBJECT: Robust methodology that allows objective, automated, and observer-independent measurements of brain tumor volume, especially after resection, is lacking. Thus, determination of tumor response and progression in neurooncology is unreliable. The objective of this study was to determine if a semi-automated volumetric method for quantifying enhancing tissue would perform with high reproducibility and low interobserver variability. METHODS: Fifty-seven MR images from 13 patients with glioblastoma were assessed using our method, by 2 neuroradiologists, 1 neurosurgeon, 1 neurosurgical resident, 1 nurse practitioner, and 1 medical student. The 2 neuroradiologists also performed traditional 1-dimensional (1D) and 2-dimensional (2D) measurements. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) assessed interobserver variability between measurements. Radiological response was determined using Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) guidelines and Macdonald criteria. Kappa statistics described interobserver variability of volumetric radiological response determinations. RESULTS: There was strong agreement for 1D (RECIST) and 2D (Macdonald) measurements between neuroradiologists (ICC = 0.42 and 0.61, respectively), but the agreement using the authors' novel automated approach was significantly stronger (ICC = 0.97). The volumetric method had the strongest agreement with regard to radiological response (κ = 0.96) when compared with 2D (κ = 0.54) or 1D (κ = 0.46) methods. Despite diverse levels of experience of the users of the volumetric method, measurements using the volumetric program remained remarkably consistent in all users (0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver variability using this new semi-automated method is less than the variability with traditional methods of tumor measurement. This new method is objective, quick, and highly reproducible among operators with varying levels of expertise. This approach should be further evaluated as a potential standard for response assessment based on contrast enhancement in brain tumors.
OBJECT: Robust methodology that allows objective, automated, and observer-independent measurements of brain tumor volume, especially after resection, is lacking. Thus, determination of tumor response and progression in neurooncology is unreliable. The objective of this study was to determine if a semi-automated volumetric method for quantifying enhancing tissue would perform with high reproducibility and low interobserver variability. METHODS: Fifty-seven MR images from 13 patients with glioblastoma were assessed using our method, by 2 neuroradiologists, 1 neurosurgeon, 1 neurosurgical resident, 1 nurse practitioner, and 1 medical student. The 2 neuroradiologists also performed traditional 1-dimensional (1D) and 2-dimensional (2D) measurements. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) assessed interobserver variability between measurements. Radiological response was determined using Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) guidelines and Macdonald criteria. Kappa statistics described interobserver variability of volumetric radiological response determinations. RESULTS: There was strong agreement for 1D (RECIST) and 2D (Macdonald) measurements between neuroradiologists (ICC = 0.42 and 0.61, respectively), but the agreement using the authors' novel automated approach was significantly stronger (ICC = 0.97). The volumetric method had the strongest agreement with regard to radiological response (κ = 0.96) when compared with 2D (κ = 0.54) or 1D (κ = 0.46) methods. Despite diverse levels of experience of the users of the volumetric method, measurements using the volumetric program remained remarkably consistent in all users (0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver variability using this new semi-automated method is less than the variability with traditional methods of tumor measurement. This new method is objective, quick, and highly reproducible among operators with varying levels of expertise. This approach should be further evaluated as a potential standard for response assessment based on contrast enhancement in brain tumors.
Entities:
Keywords:
ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; RANO = Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group; RECIST = Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors; brain neoplasm; disease progression; glioma; magnetic resonance imaging; oncology; recurrence
Authors: A G Sorensen; S Patel; C Harmath; S Bridges; J Synnott; A Sievers; Y H Yoon; E J Lee; M C Yang; R F Lewis; G J Harris; M Lev; P W Schaefer; B R Buchbinder; G Barest; K Yamada; J Ponzo; H Y Kwon; J Gemmete; J Farkas; A L Tievsky; R B Ziegler; M R Salhus; R Weisskoff Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-01-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M J Vos; B M J Uitdehaag; F Barkhof; J J Heimans; H C Baayen; W Boogerd; J A Castelijns; P H M Elkhuizen; T J Postma Journal: Neurology Date: 2003-03-11 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Patrick Y Wen; David R Macdonald; David A Reardon; Timothy F Cloughesy; A Gregory Sorensen; Evanthia Galanis; John Degroot; Wolfgang Wick; Mark R Gilbert; Andrew B Lassman; Christina Tsien; Tom Mikkelsen; Eric T Wong; Marc C Chamberlain; Roger Stupp; Kathleen R Lamborn; Michael A Vogelbaum; Martin J van den Bent; Susan M Chang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: L H Schwartz; M S Ginsberg; D DeCorato; L N Rothenberg; S Einstein; P Kijewski; D M Panicek Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Charles W Kanaly; Dale Ding; Ankit I Mehta; Anthony F Waller; Ian Crocker; Annick Desjardins; David A Reardon; Allan H Friedman; Darell D Bigner; John H Sampson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-01-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jack M Qian; Amit Mahajan; James B Yu; A John Tsiouris; Sarah B Goldberg; Harriet M Kluger; Veronica L S Chiang Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2017-03-08 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Fatima Tensaouti; Jonathan Khalifa; Amélie Lusque; Benjamin Plas; Jean Albert Lotterie; Isabelle Berry; Anne Laprie; Elizabeth Cohen-Jonathan Moyal; Vincent Lubrano Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2017-08-25 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Rebecca A Packer; John H Rossmeisl; Michael S Kent; John F Griffin; Christina Mazcko; Amy K LeBlanc Journal: Vet Radiol Ultrasound Date: 2018-03-09 Impact factor: 1.363
Authors: Thomas Huber; Georgina Alber; Stefanie Bette; Johannes Kaesmacher; Tobias Boeckh-Behrens; Jens Gempt; Florian Ringel; Hanno M Specht; Bernhard Meyer; Claus Zimmer; Benedikt Wiestler; Jan S Kirschke Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Josefa Karina Garcia Mora; John Robertson; Fang-Chi Hsu; Richard Levon Shinn; Martha M Larson; Christopher G Rylander; Christopher T Whitlow; Waldemar Debinski; Rafael V Davalos; Gregory B Daniel; John H Rossmeisl Journal: J Vet Intern Med Date: 2022-03-11 Impact factor: 3.175
Authors: Jens Kleesiek; Jens Petersen; Markus Döring; Klaus Maier-Hein; Ullrich Köthe; Wolfgang Wick; Fred A Hamprecht; Martin Bendszus; Armin Biller Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-04-27 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Matthijs van der Meulen; Alida A Postma; Marion Smits; Katerina Bakunina; Monique C Minnema; Tatjana Seute; Gavin Cull; Roelien H Enting; Marjolein van der Poel; Wendy B C Stevens; Dieta Brandsma; Aart Beeker; Jeanette K Doorduijn; Samar Issa; Martin J van den Bent; Jacoline E C Bromberg Journal: Neurooncol Adv Date: 2021-02-15