Wenli Cai1, Seth M Steinberg2, Miriam A Bredella3, Gina Basinsky1, Bhanusupriya Somarouthu1, Scott R Plotkin4, Jeffrey Solomon5, Brigitte C Widemann6, Gordon J Harris1, Eva Dombi7. 1. 3D Imaging Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Center for Cancer Research, Biostatistics and Data Management Section, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland. 3. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Stephen E. and Catherine Pappas Center for Neuro-Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Expert Image Analysis LLC., Potomac, Maryland. 6. Center for Cancer Research, Pediatric Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, 10 Center Drive, CRC Room 1-5750, Bethesda, MD 20892. 7. Center for Cancer Research, Pediatric Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, 10 Center Drive, CRC Room 1-5750, Bethesda, MD 20892. Electronic address: dombie@mail.nih.gov.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Plexiform neurofibromas (PNs) are complex, histologically benign peripheral nerve sheath tumors that are challenging to measure by simple line measurements. Computer-aided volumetric segmentation of PN has become the recommended method to assess response in clinical trials directed at PN. Different methods for volumetric analysis of PN have been developed. The goal of this study is to test the level of agreement in volume measurements and in interval changes using two separate methods of volumetric magnetic resonance imaging analysis. METHODS: Three independent volume measurements were performed on 15 PN imaged at three time-points using 3DQI software at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) and MEDx software at NCI. RESULTS: Median volume differences at each time-point comparing MGH-3DQI and NCI-3DQI were -0.5, -4.2, and -19.9 mL; comparing NCI-3DQI and NCI-MEDx were -21.0, -47.0, and -21.0 mL; comparing MGH-3DQI and NCI-MEDx were -10.0, -70.3, and -29.9 mL. Median differences in percentage change over time comparing MGH-3DQI and NCI-3DQI were -1.7, 1.1, and -1.0%; comparing NCI-3DQI and NCI-MEDx were -2.3, 3.3, and -1.1%; comparing MGH-3DQI and NCI-MEDx were -0.4, 2.0, and -1.5%. Volume differences were <20% of the mean of the two measurements in 117 of 135 comparisons (86.7%). Difference in interval change was <20% in 120 of the 135 comparisons (88.9%), while disease status classification was concordant in 115 of 135 comparisons (85.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The volumes, interval changes, and progression status classifications were in good agreement. The comparison of two volumetric analysis methods suggests no systematic differences in tumor assessment. A prospective comparison of the two methods is planned. Published by Elsevier Inc.
OBJECTIVES:Plexiform neurofibromas (PNs) are complex, histologically benign peripheral nerve sheath tumors that are challenging to measure by simple line measurements. Computer-aided volumetric segmentation of PN has become the recommended method to assess response in clinical trials directed at PN. Different methods for volumetric analysis of PN have been developed. The goal of this study is to test the level of agreement in volume measurements and in interval changes using two separate methods of volumetric magnetic resonance imaging analysis. METHODS: Three independent volume measurements were performed on 15 PN imaged at three time-points using 3DQI software at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) and MEDx software at NCI. RESULTS: Median volume differences at each time-point comparing MGH-3DQI and NCI-3DQI were -0.5, -4.2, and -19.9 mL; comparing NCI-3DQI and NCI-MEDx were -21.0, -47.0, and -21.0 mL; comparing MGH-3DQI and NCI-MEDx were -10.0, -70.3, and -29.9 mL. Median differences in percentage change over time comparing MGH-3DQI and NCI-3DQI were -1.7, 1.1, and -1.0%; comparing NCI-3DQI and NCI-MEDx were -2.3, 3.3, and -1.1%; comparing MGH-3DQI and NCI-MEDx were -0.4, 2.0, and -1.5%. Volume differences were <20% of the mean of the two measurements in 117 of 135 comparisons (86.7%). Difference in interval change was <20% in 120 of the 135 comparisons (88.9%), while disease status classification was concordant in 115 of 135 comparisons (85.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The volumes, interval changes, and progression status classifications were in good agreement. The comparison of two volumetric analysis methods suggests no systematic differences in tumor assessment. A prospective comparison of the two methods is planned. Published by Elsevier Inc.
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: Brian Weiss; Brigitte C Widemann; Pamela Wolters; Eva Dombi; Alexander A Vinks; Alan Cantor; Bruce Korf; John Perentesis; David H Gutmann; Elizabeth Schorry; Roger Packer; Michael J Fisher Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Brigitte C Widemann; Eva Dombi; Andrea Gillespie; Pamela L Wolters; Jean Belasco; Stewart Goldman; Bruce R Korf; Jeffrey Solomon; Staci Martin; Wanda Salzer; Elizabeth Fox; Nicholas Patronas; Mark W Kieran; John P Perentesis; Alyssa Reddy; John J Wright; AeRang Kim; Seth M Steinberg; Frank M Balis Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2014-02-04 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Brian Weiss; Brigitte C Widemann; Pamela Wolters; Eva Dombi; Alexander Vinks; Alan Cantor; John Perentesis; Elizabeth Schorry; Nicole Ullrich; David H Gutmann; James Tonsgard; David Viskochil; Bruce Korf; Roger J Packer; Michael J Fisher Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Eva Dombi; Andrea Baldwin; Leigh J Marcus; Michael J Fisher; Brian Weiss; AeRang Kim; Patricia Whitcomb; Staci Martin; Lindsey E Aschbacher-Smith; Tilat A Rizvi; Jianqiang Wu; Rachel Ershler; Pamela Wolters; Janet Therrien; John Glod; Jean B Belasco; Elizabeth Schorry; Alessandra Brofferio; Amy J Starosta; Andrea Gillespie; Austin L Doyle; Nancy Ratner; Brigitte C Widemann Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-12-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kent A Robertson; Grzegorz Nalepa; Feng-Chun Yang; Daniel C Bowers; Chang Y Ho; Gary D Hutchins; James M Croop; Terry A Vik; Scott C Denne; Luis F Parada; Cynthia M Hingtgen; Laurence E Walsh; Menggang Yu; Kamnesh R Pradhan; Mary K Edwards-Brown; Mervyn D Cohen; James W Fletcher; Jeffrey B Travers; Karl W Staser; Melissa W Lee; Marcie R Sherman; Cynthia J Davis; Lucy C Miller; David A Ingram; D Wade Clapp Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-10-23 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: R Ford; L Schwartz; J Dancey; L E Dodd; E A Eisenhauer; S Gwyther; L Rubinstein; D Sargent; L Shankar; P Therasse; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Wenli Cai; Ara Kassarjian; Miriam A Bredella; Gordon J Harris; Hiroyuki Yoshida; Victor F Mautner; Ralph Wenzel; Scott R Plotkin Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Scott R Plotkin; Jaishri O Blakeley; Eva Dombi; Michael J Fisher; C Oliver Hanemann; Karin S Walsh; Pamela L Wolters; Brigitte C Widemann Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Philipp Kollmann; Victor-Felix Mautner; Johannes Koeppen; Ralph Wenzel; Jan M Friedman; Johannes Salamon; Said Farschtschi Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-07-14 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Jian-Wei Zhang; Wei Chen; K Ina Ly; Xubin Zhang; Fan Yan; Justin Jordan; Gordon Harris; Scott Plotkin; Pengyi Hao; Wenli Cai Journal: IEEE J Biomed Health Inform Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 5.772
Authors: Robert Galvin; Adrienne L Watson; David A Largaespada; Nancy Ratner; Sara Osum; Christopher L Moertel Journal: Curr Oncol Rep Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 5.075