Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Ertl-Wagner, Birgit B.
• Blume, Jeffrey D.
• Peck, Donald
• Udupa, Jayaram K.
• Herman, Benjamin
• Levering, Anthony
• Schmalfuss, Ilona M.

Titel

Reliability of tumor volume estimation from MR images in patients with malignant glioma. Results from the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6662 Trial

Ist Teil von

• European radiology, 2009-03, Vol.19 (3), p.599-609

Ort / Verlag

Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag

Erscheinungsjahr

2009

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

Alma/SFX Local Collection

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Reliable assessment of tumor growth in malignant glioma poses a common problem both clinically and when studying novel therapeutic agents. We aimed to evaluate two software-systems in their ability to estimate volume change of tumor and/or edema on magnetic resonance (MR) images of malignant gliomas. Twenty patients with malignant glioma were included from different sites. Serial post-operative MR images were assessed with two software systems representative of the two fundamental segmentation methods, single-image fuzzy analysis (3DVIEWNIX-TV) and multi-spectral-image analysis (Eigentool), and with a manual method by 16 independent readers (eight MR-certified technologists, four neuroradiology fellows, four neuroradiologists). Enhancing tumor volume and tumor volume plus edema were assessed independently by each reader. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), variance components, and prediction intervals were estimated. There were no significant differences in the average tumor volume change over time between the software systems ( p  > 0.05). Both software systems were much more reliable and yielded smaller prediction intervals than manual measurements. No significant differences were observed between the volume changes determined by fellows/neuroradiologists or technologists.Semi-automated software systems are reliable tools to serve as outcome parameters in clinical studies and the basis for therapeutic decision-making for malignant gliomas, whereas manual measurements are less reliable and should not be the basis for clinical or research outcome studies.