This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sorensen, A. G. Articles by Weisskoff, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sorensen, A. G. Articles by Weisskoff, R. Social Bookmarking                            What's this?

Comparison of Diameter and Perimeter Methods for Tumor Volume Calculation

From the MGH NMR Center and Neuroradiology Division, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, MA.

Address reprint requests to Gregory Sorensen, MD, MGH NMR Center, 149 13th St, Charlestown, MA 02129; email sorensen{at}nmr .mgh.harvard.edu.

PURPOSE: Lesion volume is often used as an end point in clinical trials of oncology therapy. We sought to compare the common method of using orthogonal diameters to estimate lesion volume (the diameter method) with a computer-assisted planimetric technique (the perimeter method).

METHODS: Radiologists reviewed 825 magnetic resonance imaging studies from 219 patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Each study had lesion volume independently estimated via the diameter and perimeter methods. Cystic areas were subtracted out or excluded from the outlined lesion. Inter- and intrareader variability was measured by using multiple readings on 48 cases. Where serial studies were available in noncystic cases, a mock response analysis was used.

RESULTS: The perimeter method had a reduced interreader and intrareader variability compared with the diameter method (using SD of differences): intrareader, 1.76 mL v 7.38 mL (P < .001); interreader, 2.51 mL v 9.07 mL (P < .001) for perimeter and diameter results, respectively. Of the 121 noncystic cases, 23 had serial data. In six (26.1%) of those 23, a classification difference occurred when the perimeter method was used versus the diameter method.

CONCLUSION: Variability of measurements was reduced with the computer-assisted perimeter method compared with the diameter method, which suggests that changes in volume can be detected more accurately with the perimeter method. The differences between these techniques seem large enough to have an impact on grading the response to therapy.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J.W. Henson, S. Ulmer, and G.J. Harris Brain Tumor Imaging in Clinical Trials AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., March 1, 2008; 29(3): 419 - 424. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Y. Poussaint, P.C. Phillips, S. Vajapeyam, F.H. Fahey, R.L. Robertson, S. Osganian, U. Ramamurthy, R.V. Mulkern, S.T. Treves, J.M. Boyett, et al. The Neuroimaging Center of the Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium-Collaborative Neuroimaging in Pediatric Brain Tumor Research: A Work in Progress AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., April 1, 2007; 28(4): 603 - 607. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. D. Shah, S. Kesari, R. Xu, T. T. Batchelor, A. M. O'Neill, F. H. Hochberg, B. Levy, J. Bradshaw, and P. Y. Wen Comparison of linear and volumetric criteria in assessing tumor response in adult high-grade gliomas Neuro-oncol, January 1, 2006; 8(1): 38 - 46. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Luccichenti, F. Cademartiri, M. Sianesi, L. Roncoroni, P. Pavone, and G. P. Krestin Radiologic Assessment of Rectosigmoid Cancer Before and After Neoadjuvant Radiation Therapy: Comparison Between Quantitation Techniques Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2005; 184(2): 526 - 530. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. F. H. Chong, J.-Y. Zhou, J. B. K. Khoo, J. Huang, and T.-K. Lim Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Tumor Volume Measurement1 Radiology, June 1, 2004; 231(3): 914 - 921. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. D. Ross, B. A. Moffat, T. S. Lawrence, S. K. Mukherji, S. S. Gebarski, D. J. Quint, T. D. Johnson, L. Junck, P. L. Robertson, K. M. Muraszko, et al. Evaluation of Cancer Therapy Using Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging Mol. Cancer Ther., June 1, 2003; 2(6): 581 - 587. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M.J. Vos, B.M.J. Uitdehaag, F. Barkhof, J.J. Heimans, H.C. Baayen, W. Boogerd, J.A. Castelijns, P.H.M. Elkhuizen, and T.J. Postma Interobserver variability in the radiological assessment of response to chemotherapy in glioma Neurology, March 11, 2003; 60(5): 826 - 830. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. M. Bagley Jr and A. G. Sorensen Measurement of Brain Tumor Volumes by the Perimeter Method J. Clin. Oncol., June 15, 2001; 19(12): 3159 - 3160. [Full Text] [PDF]