Cargando…

Simple Ways to Estimate Meningioma Volume: Can ABC- and SH-Derived Methods Be Used in Clinical Practice Reliably?

BACKGROUND: There is a clinical demand for rapid estimation of meningioma volumes. Our objective was to assess the accuracy of three ABC-derived and three SH-derived formula methods on volume estimation of meningiomas. METHODS: The study group comprised 678 patients treated at our department for his...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xiao, Dongdong, Liu, Jun, Hu, Tingting, Shah Nayaz, Burkutally Mohammad, Jiang, Xiaobing, Zhang, Fangcheng, Yan, Pengfei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8407974/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34475954
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/9712287
_version_ 1783746727627456512
author Xiao, Dongdong
Liu, Jun
Hu, Tingting
Shah Nayaz, Burkutally Mohammad
Jiang, Xiaobing
Zhang, Fangcheng
Yan, Pengfei
author_facet Xiao, Dongdong
Liu, Jun
Hu, Tingting
Shah Nayaz, Burkutally Mohammad
Jiang, Xiaobing
Zhang, Fangcheng
Yan, Pengfei
author_sort Xiao, Dongdong
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There is a clinical demand for rapid estimation of meningioma volumes. Our objective was to assess the accuracy of three ABC-derived and three SH-derived formula methods on volume estimation of meningiomas. METHODS: The study group comprised 678 patients treated at our department for histopathologically proven intracranial meningiomas. For each patient, tumor volumes were independently measured using six formula methods as well as planimetry. Maximum tumor diameter and ellipsoidity were also recorded. Volumes were compared using descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and consistency analysis. RESULTS: Among all methods assessed, 2/3SH and 1/2ABC outperformed the others. No significant differences were found between volumes obtained by the two methods and those of planimetry (p > 0.05). Spearman rank-correlation coefficients (r(s)) were 0.99 for both methods (p < 0.01), and ICC were 0.99 and 0.98, respectively. In Bland-Altman plot, most data points lay inside the limit of agreement. Overall, 2/3SH overestimated tumor volumes by 1.29%, and estimation errors in 93.66% cases were within 20%; 1/2ABC overestimated tumor volumes by 5.36%, and estimation errors in 93.51% cases were within 30%. The performance of 2/3SH and 1/2ABC in small-volume meningiomas was slightly worse, especially for 1/2ABC. Correlations between ellipsoidity and percentage errors of 2/3SH and 1/2ABC were weak (r(s) = −0.06 and −0.24, respectively). Despite a significant correlation between maximum tumor diameter and planimetric volume (r(s) = −0.96), volumes could vary significantly for a given diameter. CONCLUSIONS: Formula methods 2/3SH and 1/2ABC can estimate meningioma volumes with decent accuracy. Compared with the 1/2ABC method, the 2/3SH method showed slightly better performance, especially in small-volume meningiomas. Ellipsoidity is not a suitable parameter to predict estimation error, and maximum tumor diameter is not a reliable surrogate for actual meningioma volume.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8407974
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84079742021-09-01 Simple Ways to Estimate Meningioma Volume: Can ABC- and SH-Derived Methods Be Used in Clinical Practice Reliably? Xiao, Dongdong Liu, Jun Hu, Tingting Shah Nayaz, Burkutally Mohammad Jiang, Xiaobing Zhang, Fangcheng Yan, Pengfei J Oncol Research Article BACKGROUND: There is a clinical demand for rapid estimation of meningioma volumes. Our objective was to assess the accuracy of three ABC-derived and three SH-derived formula methods on volume estimation of meningiomas. METHODS: The study group comprised 678 patients treated at our department for histopathologically proven intracranial meningiomas. For each patient, tumor volumes were independently measured using six formula methods as well as planimetry. Maximum tumor diameter and ellipsoidity were also recorded. Volumes were compared using descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and consistency analysis. RESULTS: Among all methods assessed, 2/3SH and 1/2ABC outperformed the others. No significant differences were found between volumes obtained by the two methods and those of planimetry (p > 0.05). Spearman rank-correlation coefficients (r(s)) were 0.99 for both methods (p < 0.01), and ICC were 0.99 and 0.98, respectively. In Bland-Altman plot, most data points lay inside the limit of agreement. Overall, 2/3SH overestimated tumor volumes by 1.29%, and estimation errors in 93.66% cases were within 20%; 1/2ABC overestimated tumor volumes by 5.36%, and estimation errors in 93.51% cases were within 30%. The performance of 2/3SH and 1/2ABC in small-volume meningiomas was slightly worse, especially for 1/2ABC. Correlations between ellipsoidity and percentage errors of 2/3SH and 1/2ABC were weak (r(s) = −0.06 and −0.24, respectively). Despite a significant correlation between maximum tumor diameter and planimetric volume (r(s) = −0.96), volumes could vary significantly for a given diameter. CONCLUSIONS: Formula methods 2/3SH and 1/2ABC can estimate meningioma volumes with decent accuracy. Compared with the 1/2ABC method, the 2/3SH method showed slightly better performance, especially in small-volume meningiomas. Ellipsoidity is not a suitable parameter to predict estimation error, and maximum tumor diameter is not a reliable surrogate for actual meningioma volume. Hindawi 2021-08-23 /pmc/articles/PMC8407974/ /pubmed/34475954 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/9712287 Text en Copyright © 2021 Dongdong Xiao et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Xiao, Dongdong
Liu, Jun
Hu, Tingting
Shah Nayaz, Burkutally Mohammad
Jiang, Xiaobing
Zhang, Fangcheng
Yan, Pengfei
Simple Ways to Estimate Meningioma Volume: Can ABC- and SH-Derived Methods Be Used in Clinical Practice Reliably?
title Simple Ways to Estimate Meningioma Volume: Can ABC- and SH-Derived Methods Be Used in Clinical Practice Reliably?
title_full Simple Ways to Estimate Meningioma Volume: Can ABC- and SH-Derived Methods Be Used in Clinical Practice Reliably?
title_fullStr Simple Ways to Estimate Meningioma Volume: Can ABC- and SH-Derived Methods Be Used in Clinical Practice Reliably?
title_full_unstemmed Simple Ways to Estimate Meningioma Volume: Can ABC- and SH-Derived Methods Be Used in Clinical Practice Reliably?
title_short Simple Ways to Estimate Meningioma Volume: Can ABC- and SH-Derived Methods Be Used in Clinical Practice Reliably?
title_sort simple ways to estimate meningioma volume: can abc- and sh-derived methods be used in clinical practice reliably?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8407974/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34475954
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/9712287
work_keys_str_mv AT xiaodongdong simplewaystoestimatemeningiomavolumecanabcandshderivedmethodsbeusedinclinicalpracticereliably
AT liujun simplewaystoestimatemeningiomavolumecanabcandshderivedmethodsbeusedinclinicalpracticereliably
AT hutingting simplewaystoestimatemeningiomavolumecanabcandshderivedmethodsbeusedinclinicalpracticereliably
AT shahnayazburkutallymohammad simplewaystoestimatemeningiomavolumecanabcandshderivedmethodsbeusedinclinicalpracticereliably
AT jiangxiaobing simplewaystoestimatemeningiomavolumecanabcandshderivedmethodsbeusedinclinicalpracticereliably
AT zhangfangcheng simplewaystoestimatemeningiomavolumecanabcandshderivedmethodsbeusedinclinicalpracticereliably
AT yanpengfei simplewaystoestimatemeningiomavolumecanabcandshderivedmethodsbeusedinclinicalpracticereliably