Lisa Klaassen, Teresa A Ferreira, Gregorius Luyten, Jan-Willem M Beenakker
{"title":"Estimating uveal melanoma volume with ellipsoid tumour models.","authors":"Lisa Klaassen, Teresa A Ferreira, Gregorius Luyten, Jan-Willem M Beenakker","doi":"10.1111/aos.17492","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Ellipsoid tumour models are used to approximate the tumour volume of uveal melanomas, as the conventionally used ultrasound does not provide a three-dimensional visualization of the tumour. However, these models are a simplification of the actual tumour geometry. The aim of this study was to determine to what extent several of these frequently used ellipsoid tumour models accurately describe uveal melanoma volume.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Tumours were delineated on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI for 70 uveal melanoma patients. The MRI-delineated volume was compared with three ellipsoid models, which used two-dimensional measurements such as thickness and basal diameters as input: half ellipsoids with round (V<sub>roundbase</sub>) or oval base (V<sub>ovalbase</sub>) and a paraboloid consisting of two parts, also incorporating the curvature of the eye wall (V<sub>twoparts</sub>).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Statistically significant relative differences between MRI-delineated and model volume of 53 ± 32% (V<sub>roundbase</sub>), 26 ± 24% (V<sub>ovalbase</sub>) and 15 ± 24% (V<sub>twoparts</sub>) were observed (p < 0.001). Tumour volume and shape did not influence the difference between the model volumes and MRI-delineated tumour volume.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All tumour models result in considerable systematic overestimations of tumour volume, with large variations in overestimation between patients. Adding the perpendicular basal diameter to the model decreases this variation. Although ellipsoid tumour models have been shown to be valuable on a group level, they should be used with caution for individual patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":6915,"journal":{"name":"Acta Ophthalmologica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Ophthalmologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.17492","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Ellipsoid tumour models are used to approximate the tumour volume of uveal melanomas, as the conventionally used ultrasound does not provide a three-dimensional visualization of the tumour. However, these models are a simplification of the actual tumour geometry. The aim of this study was to determine to what extent several of these frequently used ellipsoid tumour models accurately describe uveal melanoma volume.
Methods: Tumours were delineated on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI for 70 uveal melanoma patients. The MRI-delineated volume was compared with three ellipsoid models, which used two-dimensional measurements such as thickness and basal diameters as input: half ellipsoids with round (Vroundbase) or oval base (Vovalbase) and a paraboloid consisting of two parts, also incorporating the curvature of the eye wall (Vtwoparts).
Results: Statistically significant relative differences between MRI-delineated and model volume of 53 ± 32% (Vroundbase), 26 ± 24% (Vovalbase) and 15 ± 24% (Vtwoparts) were observed (p < 0.001). Tumour volume and shape did not influence the difference between the model volumes and MRI-delineated tumour volume.
Conclusion: All tumour models result in considerable systematic overestimations of tumour volume, with large variations in overestimation between patients. Adding the perpendicular basal diameter to the model decreases this variation. Although ellipsoid tumour models have been shown to be valuable on a group level, they should be used with caution for individual patients.
期刊介绍:
Acta Ophthalmologica is published on behalf of the Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation and is the official scientific publication of the following societies: The Danish Ophthalmological Society, The Finnish Ophthalmological Society, The Icelandic Ophthalmological Society, The Norwegian Ophthalmological Society and The Swedish Ophthalmological Society, and also the European Association for Vision and Eye Research (EVER).
Acta Ophthalmologica publishes clinical and experimental original articles, reviews, editorials, educational photo essays (Diagnosis and Therapy in Ophthalmology), case reports and case series, letters to the editor and doctoral theses.