Daphne Li1, Asterios Tsimpas1, Anand V Germanwala2. 1. Department of Neurological Surgery, Loyola University School of Medicine, Maywood, IL, United States. 2. Department of Neurological Surgery, Loyola University School of Medicine, Maywood, IL, United States; Edward Hines, Jr. VA Medical Center, Hines, IL, United States. Electronic address: agermanwala@gmail.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Vestibular schwannoma (VS) tumor size, a significant prognostic indicator, is closely analyzed in patients undergoing observation or treatment. It has historically been reported in terms of linear size; however, volumetric assessments can now be performed routinely. We examine the use of described measurement techniques in large published clinical series to assess their consistency. METHODS: Computerized searches of the MEDLINE database (Pubmed) from 1975 to August 2014 were conducted with the purpose of identifying large series describing the management of VSs. Articles that reported tumor size measurements were included if they described greater than 600 patients. RESULTS: 19 studies were found fitting the inclusion criteria, consisting of large retrospective studies with sample sizes ranging from 614 to 2991. A total of 17 studies reported linear measurements, while 2 studies reported volumetric assessments of tumor size. Significant variations were found regarding methods for linear measurement. Furthermore, several papers did not provide any details regarding the measurement technique. Inclusion of intracanalicular portions of the tumor was highly variable. Volume assessments were performed by segmented volume analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Among the large published series on VSs, significant variation exists regarding the utilized measurement technique to assess size. Volumetric assessments have the greatest clinical utility, sensitivity and accuracy in measuring tumor size and growth. Standardization of volume assessments will provide the best method for producing consistent literature findings. Published by Elsevier B.V.
INTRODUCTION:Vestibular schwannoma (VS) tumor size, a significant prognostic indicator, is closely analyzed in patients undergoing observation or treatment. It has historically been reported in terms of linear size; however, volumetric assessments can now be performed routinely. We examine the use of described measurement techniques in large published clinical series to assess their consistency. METHODS: Computerized searches of the MEDLINE database (Pubmed) from 1975 to August 2014 were conducted with the purpose of identifying large series describing the management of VSs. Articles that reported tumor size measurements were included if they described greater than 600 patients. RESULTS: 19 studies were found fitting the inclusion criteria, consisting of large retrospective studies with sample sizes ranging from 614 to 2991. A total of 17 studies reported linear measurements, while 2 studies reported volumetric assessments of tumor size. Significant variations were found regarding methods for linear measurement. Furthermore, several papers did not provide any details regarding the measurement technique. Inclusion of intracanalicular portions of the tumor was highly variable. Volume assessments were performed by segmented volume analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Among the large published series on VSs, significant variation exists regarding the utilized measurement technique to assess size. Volumetric assessments have the greatest clinical utility, sensitivity and accuracy in measuring tumor size and growth. Standardization of volume assessments will provide the best method for producing consistent literature findings. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Authors: Achiraya Teyateeti; Christopher S Graffeo; Avital Perry; Eric J Tryggestad; Paul D Brown; Bruce E Pollock; Michael J Link Journal: J Neurol Surg B Skull Base Date: 2021-02-18
Authors: Daniel Rueß; Lea Pöhlmann; Stefan Grau; Christina Hamisch; Alexandra Hellerbach; Harald Treuer; Martin Kocher; Maximilian I Ruge Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-04-21 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Samuel MacKeith; Tilak Das; Martin Graves; Andrew Patterson; Neil Donnelly; Richard Mannion; Patrick Axon; James Tysome Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2018-01-15 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Daniel Rueß; Lea Pöhlmann; Stefan Grau; Christina Hamisch; Mauritius Hoevels; Harald Treuer; Christian Baues; Martin Kocher; Maximillian Ruge Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 4.379