弥漫性低级别胶质瘤:评估肿瘤生长的最佳线性指标是什么?

IF 3.7 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Thomas Dos Santos, J. Deverdun, Thierry Chaptal, A. Darlix, H. Duffau, L. V. van Dokkum, Arthur Coget, M. Carrière, Eve Denis, Margaux Verdier, Nicolas Menjot de Champfleur, E. Le Bars
{"title":"弥漫性低级别胶质瘤:评估肿瘤生长的最佳线性指标是什么?","authors":"Thomas Dos Santos, J. Deverdun, Thierry Chaptal, A. Darlix, H. Duffau, L. V. van Dokkum, Arthur Coget, M. Carrière, Eve Denis, Margaux Verdier, Nicolas Menjot de Champfleur, E. Le Bars","doi":"10.1093/noajnl/vdae044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n Radiological follow-up of diffuse low-grade gliomas (LGGs) growth is challenging. Approximative visual assessment still predominates over objective quantification due to the complexity of the pathology. The infiltrating character, diffuse borders and presence of surgical cavities demand LGG based linear measurement rules to efficiently and precisely assess LGG evolution over time.\n \n \n \n We compared optimized 1D, 2D and 3D linear measurements with manual volume segmentation as a reference to assess LGG tumor growth in 36 patients with LGG (340 MRI scans), using the clinically important Mean Tumor Diameter (MTD) and the Velocity Diameter Expansion (VDE). LGG specific progression thresholds were established using the high-grade gliomas based RECIST, Macdonald and RANO criteria, comparing the sensitivity to identify progression/non-progression for each linear method compared to the ground truth established by the manual segmentation.\n \n \n \n 3D linear volume approximation correlated strongly with manually segmented volume. It also showed the highest sensitivity for progression detection. The MTD showed a comparable result, whereas the VDE highlighted that caution is warranted in case of small tumors with multiple residues. Novel LGG specific progression thresholds, or the critical change in estimated tumor volume, were increased for the 3D (from 40% to 52%) and 2D methods (from 25% to 33%) and decreased for the 1D method (from 20% to 16%). Using the 3D method allowed a ~5-minute time gain.\n \n \n \n While manual volumetric assessment remains the gold standard for calculating growth rate, the 3D linear method is the best time-efficient standardized alternative for radiological evaluation of LGGs in routine use.\n","PeriodicalId":94157,"journal":{"name":"Neuro-oncology advances","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diffuse low-grade glioma: what is the optimal linear measure to assess tumor growth?\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Dos Santos, J. Deverdun, Thierry Chaptal, A. Darlix, H. Duffau, L. V. van Dokkum, Arthur Coget, M. Carrière, Eve Denis, Margaux Verdier, Nicolas Menjot de Champfleur, E. Le Bars\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/noajnl/vdae044\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n \\n Radiological follow-up of diffuse low-grade gliomas (LGGs) growth is challenging. Approximative visual assessment still predominates over objective quantification due to the complexity of the pathology. The infiltrating character, diffuse borders and presence of surgical cavities demand LGG based linear measurement rules to efficiently and precisely assess LGG evolution over time.\\n \\n \\n \\n We compared optimized 1D, 2D and 3D linear measurements with manual volume segmentation as a reference to assess LGG tumor growth in 36 patients with LGG (340 MRI scans), using the clinically important Mean Tumor Diameter (MTD) and the Velocity Diameter Expansion (VDE). LGG specific progression thresholds were established using the high-grade gliomas based RECIST, Macdonald and RANO criteria, comparing the sensitivity to identify progression/non-progression for each linear method compared to the ground truth established by the manual segmentation.\\n \\n \\n \\n 3D linear volume approximation correlated strongly with manually segmented volume. It also showed the highest sensitivity for progression detection. The MTD showed a comparable result, whereas the VDE highlighted that caution is warranted in case of small tumors with multiple residues. Novel LGG specific progression thresholds, or the critical change in estimated tumor volume, were increased for the 3D (from 40% to 52%) and 2D methods (from 25% to 33%) and decreased for the 1D method (from 20% to 16%). Using the 3D method allowed a ~5-minute time gain.\\n \\n \\n \\n While manual volumetric assessment remains the gold standard for calculating growth rate, the 3D linear method is the best time-efficient standardized alternative for radiological evaluation of LGGs in routine use.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":94157,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuro-oncology advances\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuro-oncology advances\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"0\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/noajnl/vdae044\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuro-oncology advances","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/noajnl/vdae044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

弥漫性低级别胶质瘤(LGG)生长的放射学随访具有挑战性。由于病理的复杂性,近似肉眼评估仍比客观量化占主导地位。浸润性特征、弥漫性边界和手术空洞的存在要求基于 LGG 的线性测量规则来高效、精确地评估 LGG 随时间的演变。 我们比较了优化的一维、二维和三维线性测量方法,并以手动容积分割作为参考,使用临床上重要的平均肿瘤直径(MTD)和直径扩展速度(VDE)来评估 36 名 LGG 患者(340 次 MRI 扫描)的 LGG 肿瘤生长情况。利用基于 RECIST、Macdonald 和 RANO 标准的高级别胶质瘤建立了 LGG 特定的进展阈值,比较了每种线性方法与人工分割建立的基本事实相比,识别进展/非进展的灵敏度。 三维线性容积近似法与人工分割容积密切相关。它也显示出最高的进展检测灵敏度。MTD显示了类似的结果,而VDE则强调了在有多个残留物的小肿瘤情况下需要谨慎。三维方法(从 40% 提高到 52%)和二维方法(从 25% 提高到 33%)提高了新的 LGG 特异性进展阈值或估计肿瘤体积的临界变化,而一维方法则降低了这一阈值(从 20% 降低到 16%)。使用三维方法可节省约 5 分钟的时间。 虽然人工容积评估仍是计算生长率的黄金标准,但三维线性法是常规使用的 LGG 放射学评估的最佳省时标准化替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Diffuse low-grade glioma: what is the optimal linear measure to assess tumor growth?
Radiological follow-up of diffuse low-grade gliomas (LGGs) growth is challenging. Approximative visual assessment still predominates over objective quantification due to the complexity of the pathology. The infiltrating character, diffuse borders and presence of surgical cavities demand LGG based linear measurement rules to efficiently and precisely assess LGG evolution over time. We compared optimized 1D, 2D and 3D linear measurements with manual volume segmentation as a reference to assess LGG tumor growth in 36 patients with LGG (340 MRI scans), using the clinically important Mean Tumor Diameter (MTD) and the Velocity Diameter Expansion (VDE). LGG specific progression thresholds were established using the high-grade gliomas based RECIST, Macdonald and RANO criteria, comparing the sensitivity to identify progression/non-progression for each linear method compared to the ground truth established by the manual segmentation. 3D linear volume approximation correlated strongly with manually segmented volume. It also showed the highest sensitivity for progression detection. The MTD showed a comparable result, whereas the VDE highlighted that caution is warranted in case of small tumors with multiple residues. Novel LGG specific progression thresholds, or the critical change in estimated tumor volume, were increased for the 3D (from 40% to 52%) and 2D methods (from 25% to 33%) and decreased for the 1D method (from 20% to 16%). Using the 3D method allowed a ~5-minute time gain. While manual volumetric assessment remains the gold standard for calculating growth rate, the 3D linear method is the best time-efficient standardized alternative for radiological evaluation of LGGs in routine use.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信