Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Current Volumetric Models Overestimate Vestibular Schwannoma Size Following Stereotactic Radiosurgery.
Sherry, Alexander D; Khattab, Mohamed H; Totten, Douglas J; Wharton, David M; Luo, Guozhen; Manzoor, Nauman F; Rivas, Alejandro; Chambless, Lola B; Davis, Larry T; Attia, Albert; Cmelak, Anthony J.
Afiliación
  • Sherry AD; Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.
  • Khattab MH; Department of Radiation Oncology.
  • Totten DJ; Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.
  • Wharton DM; Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.
  • Luo G; Department of Radiation Oncology.
  • Manzoor NF; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.
  • Rivas A; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.
  • Chambless LB; Department of Neurological Surgery.
  • Davis LT; Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
  • Attia A; Department of Radiation Oncology.
  • Cmelak AJ; Department of Neurological Surgery.
Otol Neurotol ; 41(2): e262-e267, 2020 02.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31789797
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

Accurate volume assessment is essential for the management of vestibular schwannoma after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). A cuboidal approximation for volume is the standard surveillance method; however, this may overestimate tumor volume. We sought to evaluate several volumetric models and their suitability for post-SRS surveillance. STUDY

DESIGN:

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING:

Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS We evaluated 54 patients with vestibular schwannoma before and after SRS. INTERVENTION(S) Gold-standard volumes were obtained by a radiation oncologist using contouring software. Volume was also calculated by cuboidal, ellipsoidal, and spherical formulae using tumor diameters obtained by a neuroradiologist. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S) Percent error (PE) and absolute percent error (APE) were calculated. Paired t test evaluated bias, and the Bland-Altman method evaluated reproducibility. Linear regression evaluated predictors of model error.

RESULTS:

All models overestimated volume compared with the gold standard. The cuboidal model was not reproducible before SRS (p < 0.001), and no model was reproducible after SRS (cuboidal p < 0.001; ellipsoidal p = 0.02; spherical p = 0.02). Significant bias was present before SRS for the cuboidal model (p < 0.001), and post-SRS for all models [cuboidal (p < 0.001), ellipsoidal (p < 0.02), and spherical (p = 0.005)]. Model error was negatively associated with pretreatment volume for the cuboidal (PE p = 0.03; APE p = 0.03), ellipsoidal (PE p = 0.03; APE p = 0.04), and spherical (PE p = 0.02; APE p = 0.03) methods and lost linearity post-SRS.

CONCLUSIONS:

The standard cuboidal practice for following vestibular schwannoma tumor volume after SRS overestimates size. Ellipsoidal and spherical estimations have improved performance but also overestimate volume and lack reliability post-SRS. The development of other volumetric models or application of contouring software should be investigated.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neuroma Acústico / Radiocirugia Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Otol Neurotol Asunto de la revista: NEUROLOGIA / OTORRINOLARINGOLOGIA Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neuroma Acústico / Radiocirugia Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Otol Neurotol Asunto de la revista: NEUROLOGIA / OTORRINOLARINGOLOGIA Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article