Shinya Fujii1, Naoki Iwata2, Chie Inoue1, Naoko Mukuda1, Takeru Fukunaga1, Toshihide Ogawa1. 1. Division of Radiology, Department of Pathophysiological and Therapeutic Science, School of Medicine, Tottori University Faculty of Medicine, Yonago 683-8503, Japan. 2. †Division of Clinical Radiology, Tottori University Hospital, Yonago 683-8504, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this paper was to evaluate the validity of tumor volume measurement using diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging in cervical cancer. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 22 patients, who underwent preoperative 3.0 T MR examinations with DW imaging were evaluated. Tumor volume measurement by oblique axial (short axis to the uterine cervix) T2-weighted imaging was performed by manually outlining the tumor on the monitor. The area of tumor in each slice was multiplied by the slice profile (slice thickness plus intersection gap), and the total tumor volume was calculated by summation of these obtained volumes. Meanwhile, one experienced radiological technologist generated three-dimensional DW images of cervical cancer using a volume-rendering algorithm at a computer workstation, and tumor volume was automatically calculated in the workstation. Analysis via the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the validity and reliability of these methods. RESULTS: Between tumor volumes measured by T2-weighted imaging methods and DW imaging methods, the ICC was excellent (0.962). The 95% limits of agreement of volume measurement were -52.7 and 35.7 mL (mean difference, -8.5 mL). In regards to intra-observer variability, the ICC was excellent (0.963). The 95% limits of agreement of volume measurement were -42.2 and 47.4 mL (mean difference, 2.6 mL). CONCLUSION: DW imaging can be used to measure cervical cancer volume.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this paper was to evaluate the validity of tumor volume measurement using diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging in cervical cancer. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 22 patients, who underwent preoperative 3.0 T MR examinations with DW imaging were evaluated. Tumor volume measurement by oblique axial (short axis to the uterine cervix) T2-weighted imaging was performed by manually outlining the tumor on the monitor. The area of tumor in each slice was multiplied by the slice profile (slice thickness plus intersection gap), and the total tumor volume was calculated by summation of these obtained volumes. Meanwhile, one experienced radiological technologist generated three-dimensional DW images of cervical cancer using a volume-rendering algorithm at a computer workstation, and tumor volume was automatically calculated in the workstation. Analysis via the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the validity and reliability of these methods. RESULTS: Between tumor volumes measured by T2-weighted imaging methods and DW imaging methods, the ICC was excellent (0.962). The 95% limits of agreement of volume measurement were -52.7 and 35.7 mL (mean difference, -8.5 mL). In regards to intra-observer variability, the ICC was excellent (0.963). The 95% limits of agreement of volume measurement were -42.2 and 47.4 mL (mean difference, 2.6 mL). CONCLUSION: DW imaging can be used to measure cervical cancer volume.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging; magnetic resonance imaging; three-dimensional imaging; uterine cervical neoplasms; volume measurement
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: Luís Curvo-Semedo; Doenja M J Lambregts; Monique Maas; Thomas Thywissen; Rana T Mehsen; Guido Lammering; Geerard L Beets; Filipe Caseiro-Alves; Regina G H Beets-Tan Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-06-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: H C Wagenaar; J B Trimbos; S Postema; A Anastasopoulou; R J van der Geest; J H Reiber; G G Kenter; A A Peters; P M Pattynama Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: K Togashi; K Nishimura; T Sagoh; S Minami; S Noma; I Fujisawa; Y Nakano; J Konishi; H Ozasa; I Konishi Journal: Radiology Date: 1989-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mubarik A Arshad; Samuel Gitau; Henry Tam; Won-Ho E Park; Neva H Patel; Andrea Rockall; Eric O Aboagye; Nishat Bharwani; Tara D Barwick Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-12-11 Impact factor: 9.236