Erik Magnus Berntsen1,2, Anne Line Stensjøen3, Maren Staurset Langlo3, Solveig Quam Simonsen3, Pål Christensen4, Viggo Andreas Moholdt4, Ole Solheim5,6,7. 1. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, St. Olavs University Hospital, Olav Kyrres Gate, 7006, Trondheim, Norway. erik.berntsen@stolav.no. 2. Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491, Trondheim, Norway. erik.berntsen@stolav.no. 3. Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491, Trondheim, Norway. 4. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, St. Olavs University Hospital, Olav Kyrres Gate, 7006, Trondheim, Norway. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, St. Olavs University Hospital, Olav Kyrres Gate, 7006, Trondheim, Norway. 6. National Competence Centre for Ultrasound and Image Guided Therapy, St. Olavs University Hospital, 7006, Trondheim, Norway. 7. Department of Neuroscience, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491, Trondheim, Norway.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Detection of progression is clinically important for the management of glioblastoma. We sought to assess the accuracy of clinical radiological reporting and measured bidimensional products to identify radiological glioblastoma progression. The two were compared to volumetric segmentation. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we included 106 patients with histopathologically verified glioblastomas and two separate MRI scans obtained before surgery. Bidimensional products based on measurements on the axial slice with the largest tumor area were calculated, and growth estimations from the clinical radiological reports were retrieved. The two growth estimations were compared to manual volumetric segmentations. Inter-observer agreement using the bidimensional product was assessed using Kappa-statistics and by calculating the difference between two neuroradiologist in percentage change of the bidimensional product for each tumor. RESULTS: Clinical radiological reports and bidimensional products showed fairly equal accuracy when compared to volumetric segmentation with an accuracy of 67% and 66-68%, respectively. There was a difference in median volume increase of 6.9 mL (2.4 vs 9.3 mL, p < 0.001) between tumors evaluated as stable and progressed based on the clinical radiological reports. This difference was 8.1 mL (2.0 vs 10.1 ml, p < 0.001) when using the bidimensional products. The bidimensional product reached a moderate inter-observer agreement with a Kappa value of 0.689. For 32% of the tumors, the two neuroradiologists calculated a difference of more than 25% using bidimensional products. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical radiological reporting and the bidimensional product exhibit similar accuracy. The bidimensional product has moderate inter-observer agreement and is prone to underestimating tumor progression, as an average glioblastoma had to grow 10 mL in order to be classified as progressed. These findings underline the assumption that one should try to move towards volumetric assessment of glioblastoma growth in the future.
BACKGROUND: Detection of progression is clinically important for the management of glioblastoma. We sought to assess the accuracy of clinical radiological reporting and measured bidimensional products to identify radiological glioblastoma progression. The two were compared to volumetric segmentation. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we included 106 patients with histopathologically verified glioblastomas and two separate MRI scans obtained before surgery. Bidimensional products based on measurements on the axial slice with the largest tumor area were calculated, and growth estimations from the clinical radiological reports were retrieved. The two growth estimations were compared to manual volumetric segmentations. Inter-observer agreement using the bidimensional product was assessed using Kappa-statistics and by calculating the difference between two neuroradiologist in percentage change of the bidimensional product for each tumor. RESULTS: Clinical radiological reports and bidimensional products showed fairly equal accuracy when compared to volumetric segmentation with an accuracy of 67% and 66-68%, respectively. There was a difference in median volume increase of 6.9 mL (2.4 vs 9.3 mL, p < 0.001) between tumors evaluated as stable and progressed based on the clinical radiological reports. This difference was 8.1 mL (2.0 vs 10.1 ml, p < 0.001) when using the bidimensional products. The bidimensional product reached a moderate inter-observer agreement with a Kappa value of 0.689. For 32% of the tumors, the two neuroradiologists calculated a difference of more than 25% using bidimensional products. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical radiological reporting and the bidimensional product exhibit similar accuracy. The bidimensional product has moderate inter-observer agreement and is prone to underestimating tumor progression, as an average glioblastoma had to grow 10 mL in order to be classified as progressed. These findings underline the assumption that one should try to move towards volumetric assessment of glioblastoma growth in the future.
Authors: David Bouget; André Pedersen; Sayied Abdol Mohieb Hosainey; Johanna Vanel; Ole Solheim; Ingerid Reinertsen Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2021-03-26
Authors: Renske Gahrmann; Marion Smits; René Michel Vernhout; Walter Taal; Giorgios Kapsas; Jan Cees de Groot; Monique Hanse; Maaike Vos; Laurens Victor Beerepoot; Jan Buter; Zwenneke Hendrieke Flach; Bronno van der Holt; Martin van den Bent Journal: Neurooncol Adv Date: 2022-03-09
Authors: David Bouget; André Pedersen; Asgeir S Jakola; Vasileios Kavouridis; Kyrre E Emblem; Roelant S Eijgelaar; Ivar Kommers; Hilko Ardon; Frederik Barkhof; Lorenzo Bello; Mitchel S Berger; Marco Conti Nibali; Julia Furtner; Shawn Hervey-Jumper; Albert J S Idema; Barbara Kiesel; Alfred Kloet; Emmanuel Mandonnet; Domenique M J Müller; Pierre A Robe; Marco Rossi; Tommaso Sciortino; Wimar A Van den Brink; Michiel Wagemakers; Georg Widhalm; Marnix G Witte; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Philip C De Witt Hamer; Ole Solheim; Ingerid Reinertsen Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-07-27 Impact factor: 4.086
Authors: Clara Le Fèvre; Roger Sun; Hélène Cebula; Alicia Thiery; Delphine Antoni; Roland Schott; François Proust; Jean-Marc Constans; Georges Noël Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Matthijs van der Meulen; Alida A Postma; Marion Smits; Katerina Bakunina; Monique C Minnema; Tatjana Seute; Gavin Cull; Roelien H Enting; Marjolein van der Poel; Wendy B C Stevens; Dieta Brandsma; Aart Beeker; Jeanette K Doorduijn; Samar Issa; Martin J van den Bent; Jacoline E C Bromberg Journal: Neurooncol Adv Date: 2021-02-15