Katrina A Morris1,2, Allyson Parry2, Pieter M Pretorius3. 1. 1 St Vincent's Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 2. 2 Department of Neurology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK. 3. 3 Department of Neuroradiology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the sensitivity of linear and volumetric measurements on MRI in detecting schwannoma progression in patients with neurofibromatosis type 2 on bevacizumab treatment as well as the extent to which this depends on the size of the tumour. METHODS: We compared retrospectively, changes in linear tumour dimensions at a range of thresholds to volumetric tumour measurements performed using Brainlab iPlan(®) software (Feldkirchen, Germany) and classified for tumour progression according to the Response Evaluation in Neurofibromatosis and Schwannomatosis (REiNS) criteria. RESULTS: Assessment of 61 schwannomas in 46 patients with a median follow-up of 20 months (range 3-43 months) was performed. There was a mean of 7 time points per tumour (range 2-12 time points). Using the volumetric REiNS criteria as the gold standard, a sensitivity of 86% was achieved for linear measurement using a 2-mm threshold to define progression. CONCLUSION: We propose that a change in linear measurement by 2 mm (particularly in tumours with starting diameters 20-30 mm, the majority of this cohort) could be used as a filter to identify cases of possible progression requiring volumetric analysis. This pragmatic approach can be used if stabilization of a previously growing schwannoma is sufficient for a patient to continue treatment in such a circumstance. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: We demonstrate the real-world limitations of linear vs volumetric measurement in tumour response assessment and identify limited circumstances where linear measurements can be used to determine which patients require the more resource-intensive volumetric measurements.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the sensitivity of linear and volumetric measurements on MRI in detecting schwannoma progression in patients with neurofibromatosis type 2 on bevacizumab treatment as well as the extent to which this depends on the size of the tumour. METHODS: We compared retrospectively, changes in linear tumour dimensions at a range of thresholds to volumetric tumour measurements performed using Brainlab iPlan(®) software (Feldkirchen, Germany) and classified for tumour progression according to the Response Evaluation in Neurofibromatosis and Schwannomatosis (REiNS) criteria. RESULTS: Assessment of 61 schwannomas in 46 patients with a median follow-up of 20 months (range 3-43 months) was performed. There was a mean of 7 time points per tumour (range 2-12 time points). Using the volumetric REiNS criteria as the gold standard, a sensitivity of 86% was achieved for linear measurement using a 2-mm threshold to define progression. CONCLUSION: We propose that a change in linear measurement by 2 mm (particularly in tumours with starting diameters 20-30 mm, the majority of this cohort) could be used as a filter to identify cases of possible progression requiring volumetric analysis. This pragmatic approach can be used if stabilization of a previously growing schwannoma is sufficient for a patient to continue treatment in such a circumstance. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: We demonstrate the real-world limitations of linear vs volumetric measurement in tumour response assessment and identify limited circumstances where linear measurements can be used to determine which patients require the more resource-intensive volumetric measurements.
Authors: Y Shigematsu; Y Korogi; T Hirai; T Okuda; I Ikushima; T Sugahara; L Liang; M Takahashi Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 1999 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Gordon J Harris; Scott R Plotkin; Mia Maccollin; Shubha Bhat; Trinity Urban; Michael H Lev; William H Slattery Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Jaishri O Blakeley; Xiaobu Ye; Dan G Duda; Chris F Halpin; Amanda L Bergner; Alona Muzikansky; Vanessa L Merker; Elizabeth R Gerstner; Laura M Fayad; Shivani Ahlawat; Michael A Jacobs; Rakesh K Jain; Christopher Zalewski; Eva Dombi; Brigitte C Widemann; Scott R Plotkin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-03-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Scott R Plotkin; Anat O Stemmer-Rachamimov; Fred G Barker; Chris Halpin; Timothy P Padera; Alex Tyrrell; A Gregory Sorensen; Rakesh K Jain; Emmanuelle di Tomaso Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-07-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Eva Dombi; Simone L Ardern-Holmes; Dusica Babovic-Vuksanovic; Fred G Barker; Steve Connor; D Gareth Evans; Michael J Fisher; Stephane Goutagny; Gordon J Harris; Diego Jaramillo; Matthias A Karajannis; Bruce R Korf; Victor Mautner; Scott R Plotkin; Tina Y Poussaint; Kent Robertson; Chie-Schin Shih; Brigitte C Widemann Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Stavros M Stivaros; Anat O Stemmer-Rachamimov; Robert Alston; Scott R Plotkin; Joseph B Nadol; Alicia Quesnel; Jennifer O'Malley; Gillian A Whitfield; Martin G McCabe; Simon R Freeman; Simon K Lloyd; Neville B Wright; John-Paul Kilday; Ian D Kamaly-Asl; Samantha J Mills; Scott A Rutherford; Andrew T King; D Gareth Evans Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Daniel Moualed; Jonathan Wong; Owen Thomas; Calvin Heal; Rukhtam Saqib; Cameron Choi; Simon Lloyd; Scott Rutherford; Emma Stapleton; Charlotte Hammerbeck-Ward; Omar Pathmanaban; Roger Laitt; Miriam Smith; Andrew Wallace; Mark Kellett; Gareth Evans; Andrew King; Simon Freeman Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 4.246
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