P.083 Radiology reporting of low-grade glioma growth underestimates tumor expansion
Background: Surveillance by serial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is important in the management of diffuse low-grade gliomas (LGGs). Radiological interpretations of LGG scans, however, are typically qualitative and difficult to use clinically. Methods: We retrospectively compared radiological int...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Canadian journal of neurological sciences 2019-06, Vol.46 (s1), p.S36-S36 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | S36 |
---|---|
container_issue | s1 |
container_start_page | S36 |
container_title | Canadian journal of neurological sciences |
container_volume | 46 |
creator | Gui, C Lau, JC Kosteniuk, SE Lee, DH Megyesi, JF |
description | Background: Surveillance by serial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is important in the management of diffuse low-grade gliomas (LGGs). Radiological interpretations of LGG scans, however, are typically qualitative and difficult to use clinically. Methods: We retrospectively compared radiological interpretations of LGG growth/stability to volume change measured by manual segmentation. Tumour diameter was measured to evaluate methods for assessing glioma progression, including RECIST criteria, Macdonald/RANO criteria, and mean tumour diameter/ellipsoid method. Results: Tumours evaluated as stable by radiologists grew a median 5.1 mL (11.1%) relative to the comparison scan. Those evaluated as having grown increased by 13.3 mL (23.7%). Diameter-based measurements corresponded well but tended to overestimate segmented volumes, and overestimation error increased with tumour size. Agreement with segmented volume improved from a mean difference of 17.6 to 4.5 to 3.9 mm for diameter and from 104.0 to 25.3 to 15.9 mL for volume with measurements in one, two, and three dimensions. Conclusions: Given evidence that LGG volume and growth are prognostic factors, lesions should be accurately measured. Current radiological reporting workflows fail to appreciate and communicate the true expansion of LGGs. Volumetric analysis remains the gold standard for growth assessment, but diametric measurements in three dimensions may be an acceptable alternative. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/cjn.2019.181 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2799868990</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_cjn_2019_181</cupid><sourcerecordid>2799868990</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1421-a9409fa3fc0f144ea1c58a020dfe9892f5dc2e95857febd54db0dd01d03713ef3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkE1LxDAURYMoOI7u_AEBt7a-lzZts5RBR2FA8WMdMk1SO7RNTVrG-fd2mAE3rt7mvHsvh5BrhBgB87ty08UMUMRY4AmZMeB5BMj5KZlBgnmEWY7n5CKEDQDLeJbOyPtrDEVC35SuXeOqHfWmd36ou4o6Sxu3jSqvtKFVU7tW0cq77fBFx04bb8JQt2owgQ5j6zw1P73qQu26S3JmVRPM1fHOyefjw8fiKVq9LJ8X96uoxJRhpEQKwqrElmAxTY3CkhcKGGhrRCGY5bpkRvCC59asNU_1GrQG1JDkmBibzMnNIbf37nuc5siNG303VUqWC1FkhRAwUbcHqvQuBG-s7P202-8kgtxrk5M2udcmJ20THh9x1a59rSvzl_rvwy_L-2_1</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2799868990</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>P.083 Radiology reporting of low-grade glioma growth underestimates tumor expansion</title><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Gui, C ; Lau, JC ; Kosteniuk, SE ; Lee, DH ; Megyesi, JF</creator><creatorcontrib>Gui, C ; Lau, JC ; Kosteniuk, SE ; Lee, DH ; Megyesi, JF</creatorcontrib><description>Background: Surveillance by serial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is important in the management of diffuse low-grade gliomas (LGGs). Radiological interpretations of LGG scans, however, are typically qualitative and difficult to use clinically. Methods: We retrospectively compared radiological interpretations of LGG growth/stability to volume change measured by manual segmentation. Tumour diameter was measured to evaluate methods for assessing glioma progression, including RECIST criteria, Macdonald/RANO criteria, and mean tumour diameter/ellipsoid method. Results: Tumours evaluated as stable by radiologists grew a median 5.1 mL (11.1%) relative to the comparison scan. Those evaluated as having grown increased by 13.3 mL (23.7%). Diameter-based measurements corresponded well but tended to overestimate segmented volumes, and overestimation error increased with tumour size. Agreement with segmented volume improved from a mean difference of 17.6 to 4.5 to 3.9 mm for diameter and from 104.0 to 25.3 to 15.9 mL for volume with measurements in one, two, and three dimensions. Conclusions: Given evidence that LGG volume and growth are prognostic factors, lesions should be accurately measured. Current radiological reporting workflows fail to appreciate and communicate the true expansion of LGGs. Volumetric analysis remains the gold standard for growth assessment, but diametric measurements in three dimensions may be an acceptable alternative.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0317-1671</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2057-0155</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/cjn.2019.181</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Glioma ; Neuroimaging ; Neuroradiology (CSNR) ; Poster Presentations ; Volumetric analysis</subject><ispartof>Canadian journal of neurological sciences, 2019-06, Vol.46 (s1), p.S36-S36</ispartof><rights>The Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences Inc. 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0317167119001811/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,776,780,27903,27904,55606</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gui, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lau, JC</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kosteniuk, SE</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, DH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Megyesi, JF</creatorcontrib><title>P.083 Radiology reporting of low-grade glioma growth underestimates tumor expansion</title><title>Canadian journal of neurological sciences</title><addtitle>Can. J. Neurol. Sci</addtitle><description>Background: Surveillance by serial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is important in the management of diffuse low-grade gliomas (LGGs). Radiological interpretations of LGG scans, however, are typically qualitative and difficult to use clinically. Methods: We retrospectively compared radiological interpretations of LGG growth/stability to volume change measured by manual segmentation. Tumour diameter was measured to evaluate methods for assessing glioma progression, including RECIST criteria, Macdonald/RANO criteria, and mean tumour diameter/ellipsoid method. Results: Tumours evaluated as stable by radiologists grew a median 5.1 mL (11.1%) relative to the comparison scan. Those evaluated as having grown increased by 13.3 mL (23.7%). Diameter-based measurements corresponded well but tended to overestimate segmented volumes, and overestimation error increased with tumour size. Agreement with segmented volume improved from a mean difference of 17.6 to 4.5 to 3.9 mm for diameter and from 104.0 to 25.3 to 15.9 mL for volume with measurements in one, two, and three dimensions. Conclusions: Given evidence that LGG volume and growth are prognostic factors, lesions should be accurately measured. Current radiological reporting workflows fail to appreciate and communicate the true expansion of LGGs. Volumetric analysis remains the gold standard for growth assessment, but diametric measurements in three dimensions may be an acceptable alternative.</description><subject>Glioma</subject><subject>Neuroimaging</subject><subject>Neuroradiology (CSNR)</subject><subject>Poster Presentations</subject><subject>Volumetric analysis</subject><issn>0317-1671</issn><issn>2057-0155</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNptkE1LxDAURYMoOI7u_AEBt7a-lzZts5RBR2FA8WMdMk1SO7RNTVrG-fd2mAE3rt7mvHsvh5BrhBgB87ty08UMUMRY4AmZMeB5BMj5KZlBgnmEWY7n5CKEDQDLeJbOyPtrDEVC35SuXeOqHfWmd36ou4o6Sxu3jSqvtKFVU7tW0cq77fBFx04bb8JQt2owgQ5j6zw1P73qQu26S3JmVRPM1fHOyefjw8fiKVq9LJ8X96uoxJRhpEQKwqrElmAxTY3CkhcKGGhrRCGY5bpkRvCC59asNU_1GrQG1JDkmBibzMnNIbf37nuc5siNG303VUqWC1FkhRAwUbcHqvQuBG-s7P202-8kgtxrk5M2udcmJ20THh9x1a59rSvzl_rvwy_L-2_1</recordid><startdate>201906</startdate><enddate>201906</enddate><creator>Gui, C</creator><creator>Lau, JC</creator><creator>Kosteniuk, SE</creator><creator>Lee, DH</creator><creator>Megyesi, JF</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201906</creationdate><title>P.083 Radiology reporting of low-grade glioma growth underestimates tumor expansion</title><author>Gui, C ; Lau, JC ; Kosteniuk, SE ; Lee, DH ; Megyesi, JF</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1421-a9409fa3fc0f144ea1c58a020dfe9892f5dc2e95857febd54db0dd01d03713ef3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Glioma</topic><topic>Neuroimaging</topic><topic>Neuroradiology (CSNR)</topic><topic>Poster Presentations</topic><topic>Volumetric analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gui, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lau, JC</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kosteniuk, SE</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, DH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Megyesi, JF</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Canadian journal of neurological sciences</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gui, C</au><au>Lau, JC</au><au>Kosteniuk, SE</au><au>Lee, DH</au><au>Megyesi, JF</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>P.083 Radiology reporting of low-grade glioma growth underestimates tumor expansion</atitle><jtitle>Canadian journal of neurological sciences</jtitle><addtitle>Can. J. Neurol. Sci</addtitle><date>2019-06</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>s1</issue><spage>S36</spage><epage>S36</epage><pages>S36-S36</pages><issn>0317-1671</issn><eissn>2057-0155</eissn><abstract>Background: Surveillance by serial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is important in the management of diffuse low-grade gliomas (LGGs). Radiological interpretations of LGG scans, however, are typically qualitative and difficult to use clinically. Methods: We retrospectively compared radiological interpretations of LGG growth/stability to volume change measured by manual segmentation. Tumour diameter was measured to evaluate methods for assessing glioma progression, including RECIST criteria, Macdonald/RANO criteria, and mean tumour diameter/ellipsoid method. Results: Tumours evaluated as stable by radiologists grew a median 5.1 mL (11.1%) relative to the comparison scan. Those evaluated as having grown increased by 13.3 mL (23.7%). Diameter-based measurements corresponded well but tended to overestimate segmented volumes, and overestimation error increased with tumour size. Agreement with segmented volume improved from a mean difference of 17.6 to 4.5 to 3.9 mm for diameter and from 104.0 to 25.3 to 15.9 mL for volume with measurements in one, two, and three dimensions. Conclusions: Given evidence that LGG volume and growth are prognostic factors, lesions should be accurately measured. Current radiological reporting workflows fail to appreciate and communicate the true expansion of LGGs. Volumetric analysis remains the gold standard for growth assessment, but diametric measurements in three dimensions may be an acceptable alternative.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/cjn.2019.181</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0317-1671 |
ispartof | Canadian journal of neurological sciences, 2019-06, Vol.46 (s1), p.S36-S36 |
issn | 0317-1671 2057-0155 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2799868990 |
source | Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
subjects | Glioma Neuroimaging Neuroradiology (CSNR) Poster Presentations Volumetric analysis |
title | P.083 Radiology reporting of low-grade glioma growth underestimates tumor expansion |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T09%3A42%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=P.083%20Radiology%20reporting%20of%20low-grade%20glioma%20growth%20underestimates%20tumor%20expansion&rft.jtitle=Canadian%20journal%20of%20neurological%20sciences&rft.au=Gui,%20C&rft.date=2019-06&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=s1&rft.spage=S36&rft.epage=S36&rft.pages=S36-S36&rft.issn=0317-1671&rft.eissn=2057-0155&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/cjn.2019.181&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2799868990%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2799868990&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_cjn_2019_181&rfr_iscdi=true |