Christopher Roark1, Venu Vadlamudi2, Neeraj Chaudhary3, Joseph J Gemmete3, Joshua Seinfeld1, B Gregory Thompson4, Aditya S Pandey4. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado. 2. Department of Radiology, Inova Alexandria Hospital, Alexandria, Virginia. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is a treatment option for cerebral arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) to prevent intracranial hemorrhage. The decision to proceed with SRS is usually based on calculated nidal volume. Physicians commonly use the ABC/2 formula, based on digital subtraction angiography (DSA), when counseling patients for SRS. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether AVM volume calculated using the ABC/2 method on DSA is accurate when compared to the exact volume calculated from thin-cut axial sections used for SRS planning. METHODS: Retrospective search of neurovascular database to identify AVMs treated with SRS from 1995 to 2015. Maximum nidal diameters in orthogonal planes on DSA images were recorded to determine volume using ABC/2 formula. Nidal target volume was extracted from operative reports of SRS. Volumes were then compared using descriptive statistics and paired t-tests. RESULTS: Ninety intracranial AVMs were identified. Median volume was 4.96 cm3 [interquartile range (IQR) 1.79-8.85] with SRS planning methods and 6.07 cm3 (IQR 1.3-13.6) with ABC/2 methodology. Moderate correlation was seen between SRS and ABC/2 (r = 0.662; P < .001). Paired sample t-tests revealed significant differences between SRS volume and ABC/2 (t = -3.2; P = .002). When AVMs were dichotomized based on ABC/2 volume, significant differences remained (t = 3.1, P = .003 for ABC/2 volume < 7 cm3; t = -4.4, P < .001 for ABC/2 volume > 7 cm3). CONCLUSION: The ABC/2 method overestimates cerebral AVM volume when compared to volumetric analysis from SRS planning software. For AVMs > 7 cm3, the overestimation is even greater. SRS planning techniques were also significantly different than values derived from equations for cones and cylinders.
BACKGROUND: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is a treatment option for cerebral arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) to prevent intracranial hemorrhage. The decision to proceed with SRS is usually based on calculated nidal volume. Physicians commonly use the ABC/2 formula, based on digital subtraction angiography (DSA), when counseling patients for SRS. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether AVM volume calculated using the ABC/2 method on DSA is accurate when compared to the exact volume calculated from thin-cut axial sections used for SRS planning. METHODS: Retrospective search of neurovascular database to identify AVMs treated with SRS from 1995 to 2015. Maximum nidal diameters in orthogonal planes on DSA images were recorded to determine volume using ABC/2 formula. Nidal target volume was extracted from operative reports of SRS. Volumes were then compared using descriptive statistics and paired t-tests. RESULTS: Ninety intracranial AVMs were identified. Median volume was 4.96 cm3 [interquartile range (IQR) 1.79-8.85] with SRS planning methods and 6.07 cm3 (IQR 1.3-13.6) with ABC/2 methodology. Moderate correlation was seen between SRS and ABC/2 (r = 0.662; P < .001). Paired sample t-tests revealed significant differences between SRS volume and ABC/2 (t = -3.2; P = .002). When AVMs were dichotomized based on ABC/2 volume, significant differences remained (t = 3.1, P = .003 for ABC/2 volume < 7 cm3; t = -4.4, P < .001 for ABC/2 volume > 7 cm3). CONCLUSION: The ABC/2 method overestimates cerebral AVM volume when compared to volumetric analysis from SRS planning software. For AVMs > 7 cm3, the overestimation is even greater. SRS planning techniques were also significantly different than values derived from equations for cones and cylinders.
Authors: Mehdi Yahia-Cherif; Chifra Fenton; Thomas Bonnet; Olivier De Witte; Stéphane Simon; Viviane De Maertelaer; Benjamin Mine; Florence Lefranc; Boris Lubicz Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2022-10-22 Impact factor: 2.995
Authors: Faraz Behzadi; Daniel M Heiferman; Amy Wozniak; Benjamin Africk; Matthew Ballard; Joshua Chazaro; Brandon Zsigray; Matthew Reynolds; Douglas E Anderson; Joseph C Serrone Journal: J Cerebrovasc Endovasc Neurosurg Date: 2022-05-06
Authors: Ching-Jen Chen; Dale Ding; Cheng-Chia Lee; Kathryn N Kearns; I Jonathan Pomeraniec; Christopher P Cifarelli; David E Arsanious; Roman Liscak; Jaromir Hanuska; Brian J Williams; Mehran B Yusuf; Shiao Y Woo; Natasha Ironside; Rebecca M Burke; Ronald E Warnick; Daniel M Trifiletti; David Mathieu; Monica Mureb; Carolina Benjamin; Douglas Kondziolka; Caleb E Feliciano; Rafael Rodriguez-Mercado; Kevin M Cockroft; Scott Simon; Heath B Mackley; Samer G Zammar; Neel T Patel; Varun Padmanaban; Nathan Beatson; Anissa Saylany; John Y K Lee; Jason P Sheehan Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2020-12-11 Impact factor: 5.408
Authors: Sae-Yeon Won; Andrea Zagorcic; Daniel Dubinski; Johanna Quick-Weller; Eva Herrmann; Volker Seifert; Juergen Konczalla Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: David Yuen Chung Chan; Eric Yuk Hong Cheung; Ka Ho Hui; Cecelia Mei Sze Leung; Stephanie Chi Ping Ng; Wai Kit Mak; George Kwok Chu Wong; Tat Ming Danny Chan; Wai Sang Poon Journal: Chin Neurosurg J Date: 2022-08-03