Reliability of 3 Strategies of Orbital Tumor Volume Measurement Using Phantom Modeling.
Journal
Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery
ISSN: 1537-2677
Titre abrégé: Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8508431
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
pubmed:
1
8
2020
medline:
25
5
2021
entrez:
1
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The reliability of 3 volume measurement strategies was investigated using MRI and a simple method for creating phantom orbit tumors. Water-based starch was molded into orbital "tumors" of 3 shapes (sphere, ovoid, diffuse); water displacement was used to calculate volume. "Tumors" were placed into 3D-printed orbit phantoms, MRIs were obtained and volume analysis was performed. Observers measured tumor volume using ellipsoid volume (EV), manual segmentation, and semi-automated segmentation strategies. Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated comparing observer measurements to true volumes. The coefficient of repeatability determined the percentage of tumor volume change required for each method to detect tumor growth. Intraclass correlation coefficients comparing measured volumes to true volumes using EV, manual segmentation, and semi-automated segmentation were 0.61, 0.98, and 0.99 for spherical, 0.64, 0.97, and 0.98 for ovoid, and 0.18, 0.82, and 0.87 for diffuse tumors. Semi-automated segmentation followed by manual segmentation had the highest correlation between measured and true tumor volume for all 3 tumor geometries. EV had low correlation with true volume for all tumor geometries. Diffuse tumors had high variability and low correlation for all 3 measurement techniques. This study shows the reliability of 3 strategies to measure orbital tumor volume with MRI based on tumor geometry, using a simple phantom model. EV, the most commonly employed strategy in clinical practice, had low correlation and high variability across tumor shapes. Using manual segmentation and semi-automated segmentation, a measured change in volume greater than 25% may be considered true growth, while the EV strategy required a 40%-400% change in volume to reliably measure tumor growth.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32732541
pii: 00002341-202105001-00008
doi: 10.1097/IOP.0000000000001785
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
S33-S38Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Inc.
Références
Chohan MO, Levin AM, Singh R, et al. Three-dimensional volumetric measurements in defining endoscope-guided giant adenoma surgery outcomes Pituitary. 2016; 19:311–321
Tang X, Liu H, Chen L, et al. Semi-automatic volume measurement for orbital fat and total extraocular muscles based on Cube FSE-flex sequence in patients with thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy Clin Radiol. 2018; 73:759.e11–17
Comerci M, Elefante A, Strianese D, et al. Semiautomatic regional segmentation to measure orbital fat volumes in thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy. A validation study Neuroradiol J. 2013; 26:373–379
Weis E, Heran M, Jhamb A, et al. Quantitative Computed Tomographic Predictors of Compressive Optic Neuropathy in Patients with Thyroid Orbitopathy: A Volumetric Analysis Ophthalmology. 2010; 119:2174–2178
Regensburg NI, Kok PH, Zonneveld FW, et al. A new and validated CT-based method for the calculation of orbital soft tissue volumes Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008; 49:1758–1762
Bijlsma WR, Mourits MP.Radiologic measurement of extraocular muscle volumes in patients with Graves’ orbitopathy: a review and guideline Orbit. 2006; 25:83–91
Forbes G, Gehring DG, Gorman CA, et al. Volume measurements of normal orbital structures by computed tomographic analysis quantitative volumetric assessment of orbital soft tissue Ajnr. 1985; 6:419–424
Boparai RS, Maeng MM, Dunbar KE, et al. Comparing Image Segmentation Techniques for Determining 3D Orbital Cavernous Hemangioma Size on MRI [published online ahead of print, 2020 May 14] Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020. 10.1097/IOP.0000000000001651
doi: 10.1097/IOP.0000000000001651
Pupulim LF, Ronot M, Paradis V, et al. Volumetric measurement of hepatic tumors: accuracy of manual contouring using CT with volumetric pathology as the reference method Diagn Interv Imaging. 2018; 99:83–89
Ning Q, Yu X, Gao Q, et al. An accurate interactive segmentation and volume calculation of orbital soft tissue for orbital reconstruction after enucleation BMC Ophthalmol. 2019; 19:256
Kim HC, Yoon SW, Lew H.Usefulness of the ratio of orbital fat to total orbit area in mild-to-moderate thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy Br J Radiol. 2015; 88:20150164
Bland JM, Altman DG.Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement Lancet. 1986; 1:307–310
Mafee MF, Putterman A, Valvassori GE, et al. Orbital space-occupying lesions: role of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. An analysis of 145 cases Radiol Clin North Am. 1987; 25:529–559
Dinkel J, Khalilzadeh O, Hintze C, et al. Inter-observer reproducibility of semi-automatic tumor diameter measurement and volumetric analysis in patients with lung cancer Lung Cancer. 2013; 82:76–82
Öztürk Ç, Velleman T, Bongaerts AH, et al. Assessment of volumetric versus manual measurement in disseminated testicular cancer; no difference in assessment between non-radiologists and genitourinary radiologist PLoS One. 2017; 12:e0168977
Lodewick TM, Arnoldussen CW, Lahaye MJ, et al. Fast and accurate liver volumetry prior to hepatectomy HPB (Oxford). 2016; 18:764–772
Gill RR, Naidich DP, Mitchell A, et al.; Malignant Mesothelioma Volumetric CT Study Group. North American multicenter volumetric CT study for clinical staging of malignant pleural mesothelioma: feasibility and logistics of setting up a quantitative imaging study J Thorac Oncol. 2016; 11:1335–1344
D’Onofrio M, De Robertis R, Demozzi E, et al. Liver volumetry: Is imaging reliable? Personal experience and review of the literature. World J Radiol. 2014; 6:62–71