Sree Harsha Tirumani1,2, Atul B Shinagare3,4, Ailbhe C O'Neill4, Mizuki Nishino3,4, Michael H Rosenthal3,4, Nikhil H Ramaiya3,4. 1. Department of Imaging, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, 450 Brookline Avenue, Boston, MA, 02215, USA. Sreeharsha_Tirumani@DFCI.HARVARD.EDU. 2. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. Sreeharsha_Tirumani@DFCI.HARVARD.EDU. 3. Department of Imaging, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, 450 Brookline Avenue, Boston, MA, 02215, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To validate estimated tumour volumetry in primary gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) using semiautomated volumetry. METHODS: In this IRB-approved retrospective study, we measured the three longest diameters in x, y, z axes on CTs of primary gastric GISTs in 127 consecutive patients (52 women, 75 men, mean age 61 years) at our institute between 2000 and 2013. Segmented volumes (Vsegmented) were obtained using commercial software by two radiologists. Estimate volumes (V1-V6) were obtained using formulae for spheres and ellipsoids. Intra- and interobserver agreement of Vsegmented and agreement of V1-6 with Vsegmented were analysed with concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Median Vsegmented and V1-V6 were 75.9, 124.9, 111.6, 94.0, 94.4, 61.7 and 80.3 cm(3), respectively. There was strong intra- and interobserver agreement for Vsegmented. Agreement with Vsegmented was highest for V6 (scalene ellipsoid, x ≠ y ≠ z), with CCC of 0.96 [95 % CI 0.95-0.97]. Mean relative difference was smallest for V6 (0.6 %), while it was -19.1 % for V5, +14.5 % for V4, +17.9 % for V3, +32.6 % for V2 and +47 % for V1. CONCLUSION: Ellipsoidal approximations of volume using three measured axes may be used to closely estimate Vsegmented when semiautomated techniques are unavailable. KEY POINTS: Estimation of tumour volume in primary GIST using mathematical formulae is feasible. Gastric GISTs are rarely spherical. Segmented volumes are highly concordant with three axis-based scalene ellipsoid volumes. Ellipsoid volume can be used as an alternative for automated tumour volumetry.
OBJECTIVES: To validate estimated tumour volumetry in primary gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) using semiautomated volumetry. METHODS: In this IRB-approved retrospective study, we measured the three longest diameters in x, y, z axes on CTs of primary gastric GISTs in 127 consecutive patients (52 women, 75 men, mean age 61 years) at our institute between 2000 and 2013. Segmented volumes (Vsegmented) were obtained using commercial software by two radiologists. Estimate volumes (V1-V6) were obtained using formulae for spheres and ellipsoids. Intra- and interobserver agreement of Vsegmented and agreement of V1-6 with Vsegmented were analysed with concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Median Vsegmented and V1-V6 were 75.9, 124.9, 111.6, 94.0, 94.4, 61.7 and 80.3 cm(3), respectively. There was strong intra- and interobserver agreement for Vsegmented. Agreement with Vsegmented was highest for V6 (scalene ellipsoid, x ≠ y ≠ z), with CCC of 0.96 [95 % CI 0.95-0.97]. Mean relative difference was smallest for V6 (0.6 %), while it was -19.1 % for V5, +14.5 % for V4, +17.9 % for V3, +32.6 % for V2 and +47 % for V1. CONCLUSION: Ellipsoidal approximations of volume using three measured axes may be used to closely estimate Vsegmented when semiautomated techniques are unavailable. KEY POINTS: Estimation of tumour volume in primary GIST using mathematical formulae is feasible. Gastric GISTs are rarely spherical. Segmented volumes are highly concordant with three axis-based scalene ellipsoid volumes. Ellipsoid volume can be used as an alternative for automated tumour volumetry.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Mizuki Nishino; Mengye Guo; David M Jackman; Pamela J DiPiro; Jeffrey T Yap; Tak K Ho; Hiroto Hatabu; Pasi A Jänne; Annick D Van den Abbeele; Bruce E Johnson Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2010-10-30 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: P David Mozley; Claus Bendtsen; Binsheng Zhao; Lawrence H Schwartz; Matthias Thorn; Yuanxin Rong; Luduan Zhang; Andrea Perrone; René Korn; Andrew J Buckler Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Dian Wang; Qiang Zhang; Charles D Blanke; George D Demetri; Michael C Heinrich; James C Watson; John P Hoffman; Scott Okuno; John M Kane; Margaret von Mehren; Burton L Eisenberg Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-12-28 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Doenja M J Lambregts; Sheng-Xiang Rao; Sander Sassen; Milou H Martens; Luc A Heijnen; Jeroen Buijsen; Meindert Sosef; Geerard L Beets; Roy A Vliegen; Regina G H Beets-Tan Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Gaia Schiavon; Alessandro Ruggiero; Patrick Schöffski; Bronno van der Holt; Dave J Bekers; Karel Eechoute; Vincent Vandecaveye; Gabriel P Krestin; Jaap Verweij; Stefan Sleijfer; Ron H J Mathijssen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-11-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: S C Brandelik; J Krzykalla; T Hielscher; J Hillengass; J K Kloth; H U Kauczor; M A Weber Journal: Radiologe Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 0.635
Authors: Leonardo S Lino-Silva; Patricia Segales-Rojas; Eduardo Aguilar-Cruz; Rosa A Salcedo-Hernández; César Zepeda-Najar Journal: J Gastrointest Cancer Date: 2019-09
Authors: Nida Fatima; Anne K Maxwell; Anna La Dine; Zachary R Barnard; Gautam U Mehta; Eric P Wilkinson; Derald E Brackmann; William H Slattery; Gregory P Lekovic Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 4.130