| Literature DB >> 34988014 |
Xiangyu Meng1, Dezhi Gao1,2, Hengwei Jin1,3, Kuanyu Wang1,2, Enmeng Bao1,2, Ali Liu1,2, Youxiang Li1,3, Shibin Sun1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND ANDEntities:
Keywords: arteriovenous malformations; dose-stage stereotactic radiosurgery; morphologic feature; radiomics; volume reduction
Year: 2021 PMID: 34988014 PMCID: PMC8722676 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.769533
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1The flowchart illustrated the method and procedure of this study.
Baseline characteristics of enrolled patients.
| Character | NO |
|---|---|
| Number of patients | 30 |
| Gender | |
| Male | 15 (50.00%) |
| Female | 15 (50.00%) |
| Initial presentations | |
| Hemorrhage | 17 (56.67%) |
| Epilepsy | 4 (13.33%) |
| Headache | 3 (10.00%) |
| Neurological deficit | 5 (16.67%) |
| No symptom | 1 (3.33%) |
| Location of lesions | |
| Frontal and temporal lobe | 4 (13.33%) |
| Cerebellum | 1 (3.33%) |
| Basal ganglia and thalamus | 5 (16.67%) |
| Brain stem | 7 (23.33%) |
| Other brain lobe | 13 (43.34%) |
| Eloquent or non-eloquent | |
| Eloquent | 24 (80.00%) |
| Non-eloquent | 6 (20.00%) |
| Drainage vein | |
| Deep | 15 (50.00%) |
| Superficial | 15 (50.00%) |
| Spetzler-Martin grade | |
| I | 0 |
| II | 4 (13.33%) |
| III | 13 (43.34%) |
| IV | 7 (23.33%) |
| V | 0 |
| VI | 6 (20.00%) |
| Radiosurgery-Based AVM Score (RBAS, mean) | 2.12 |
| Virginia Radiosurgery AVM Score (VRAS) | |
| I | 0 |
| II | 3 (10.00%) |
| III | 13 (43.34%) |
| IV | 14 (46.66%) |
Dosimetric and morphologic features for Dose-stage SRS patients.
| Factors | Value for all patients (mean ± SD) | Value for high-speed group (mean ± SD) | Value for low-speed group (mean ± SD) | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P value | P value | 95% CI | ||||
| Presicription dose (Gy) | 14.83 ± 1.08 | 14.56 ± 1.15 | 15.14 ± 0.93 | 0.14 | – | – |
| Maximum dose (Gy) | 29.85 ± 2.30 | 29.64 ± 2.70 | 30.08 ± 1.81 | 0.61 | – | – |
| Mean dose (Gy) | 19.72 ± 1.58 | 19.42 ± 1.64 | 20.06 ± 1.50 | 0.28 | – | – |
| original_shape_Elongation | 0.71 ± 0.14 | 0.68 ± 0.15 | 0.74 ± 0.12 | 0.22 | – | – |
| original_shape_Flatness | 0.54 ± 0.12 | 0.52 ± 0.12 | 0.56 ± 0.12 | 0.33 | – | – |
| original_shape_LeastAxisLength (mm) | 20.12 ± 3.99 | 21.19 ± 3.79 | 18.89 ± 3.99 | 0.12 | – | – |
| original_shape_MajorAxisLength (mm) | 38.89 ± 9.18 | 42.32 ± 7.98 | 34.97 ± 9.13 | 0.028* | 0.33 | 0.946-1.173 |
| original_shape_Maximum2DDiameterColumn (mm) | 38.38 ± 6.63 | 41.05 ± 5.70 | 35.34 ± 6.47 | 0.017* | 0.35 | 0.871-1.332 |
| original_shape_Maximum2DDiameterRow (mm) | 39.70 ± 7.42 | 41.60 ± 4.91 | 37.53 ± 9.26 | 0.16 | ||
| original_shape_Maximum2DDiameterSlice (mm) | 36.95 ± 8.16 | 39.84 ± 7.57 | 33.65 ± 7.76 | 0.036* | 0.63 | 0.898-1.221 |
| original_shape_Maximum3DDiameter (mm) | 45.16 ± 9.03 | 48.85 ± 6.84 | 40.94 ± 9.61 | 0.017* | 0.33 | 0.635-1.435 |
| original_shape_MinorAxisLength (mm) | 26.65 ± 4.16 | 27.86 ± 3.45 | 25.26 ± 4.59 | 0.096 | 0.88 | 0.651-1.529 |
| original_shape_Sphericity | 0.65 ± 0.05 | 0.66 ± 0.04 | 0.65 ± 0.07 | 0.63 | – | – |
| original_shape_SurfaceArea (cm2) | 39.78 ± 11.59 | 44.64 ± 9.17 | 34.23 ± 11.85 | 0.014* | 0.71 | 0.995-1.006 |
| original_shape_SurfaceVolumeRatio | 0.33 ± 0.05 | 0.31 ± 0.04 | 0.37 ± 0.05 | 0.001* | 0.010* | 0.560-0.925 |
| original_shape_VoxelVolume (cm3) | 12.68 ± 5.47 | 15.24 ± 5.20 | 9.75 ± 4.26 | 0.004* | 0.86 | 0.999-1.000 |
*The cutoff value for velocity of volume reduction was 0.21 cm3/month in Time-stage SRS patients.
Figure 2The relationship of SurfaceVolumeRatio with the volume reduction velocity after initial dose-stage SRS treatment. Left figure showed a strong correlation in Pearson Correlation analysis of the SurfaceVolumeRatio and the volume reduction velocity (p<0.001, R=0.66); Right figure showed the ROC curve of using SurfaceVolumeRatio to determine the nidus into high-/low-speed groups in volume reduction separated by a cutoff derived from the volume reduction velocity. (p=0.002, AUC=0.83) The best cutoff value for this feature was 0.335 to classify the high-/low-speed of volume reduction, with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.75 and 0.79, respectively.
Figure 3Two patients with a relatively similar volume of nidus but different SurfaceVolumeRatio were shown in (A–D). (A, B) A patient with a volume nidus of 11.73ml was applied with a prescription dose of 17 Gy, maximum dose of 34 Gy for dose-stage SRS, and the SurfaceVolumeRatio of this patient was 0.312 which was lower than the best cutoff value in ROC curve. The second treatment was shown in (B), and the mean volume reduction velocity for this patient was 0.253 cm3/month. (C, D) A patient with a volume nidus of 9.75ml was applied with a prescription dose of 16 Gy, maximum dose of 32 Gy for dose-stage SRS, and the SurfaceVolumeRatio of this patient was 0.447 which was higher than the best cutoff value in ROC curve. The second treatment was shown in (D), and the mean velocity of volume reduction for this patient was 0.092 cm3/month.