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":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":"59 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"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\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":\"59 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"0\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/noajnl/vdae044\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/noajnl/vdae044","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
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.
期刊介绍:
ACS Applied Electronic Materials is an interdisciplinary journal publishing original research covering all aspects of electronic materials. The journal is devoted to reports of new and original experimental and theoretical research of an applied nature that integrate knowledge in the areas of materials science, engineering, optics, physics, and chemistry into important applications of electronic materials. Sample research topics that span the journal's scope are inorganic, organic, ionic and polymeric materials with properties that include conducting, semiconducting, superconducting, insulating, dielectric, magnetic, optoelectronic, piezoelectric, ferroelectric and thermoelectric.
Indexed/Abstracted:
Web of Science SCIE
Scopus
CAS
INSPEC
Portico