Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Joe, B. N.
Right arrow Articles by Bozik, M. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Joe, B. N.
Right arrow Articles by Bozik, M. E.
(Radiology. 1999;212:811-816.)
© RSNA, 1999

Computer Applications

Brain Tumor Volume Measurement: Comparison of Manual and Semiautomated Methods1

Bonnie N. Joe, MD, PhD, Melanie B. Fukui, MD, Carolyn Cidis Meltzer, MD, Qing-shou Huang, MS, Roger S. Day, ScD, Phil J. Greer, BS and Michael E. Bozik, MD

1 From the Departments of Radiology, Division of Neuroradiology (B.N.J., M.B.F., C.C.M., P.J.G.), Psychiatry (C.C.M.), Neurosurgery (M.E.B.), Neurology (M.E.B.), and Medicine (M.E.B.), and the Pittsburgh Cancer Institute (Q.H., R.S.D.), University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa. Received May 29, 1998; revision requested July 22; revision received November 11; accepted March 29, 1999. Address reprint requests to M.B.F., Department of Radiology, Presbyterian University Hospital, Rm D-132, 200 Lothrop St, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2582 (e-mail: fukuimb@radserv.arad.upmc.edu).

PURPOSE: To compare the reliability of two approaches to measuring enhancing brain tumor volumes—the conventional manual trace method and a threshold-based, semiautomated computer software method.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two operators rated contrast material–enhanced, T1-weighted axial magnetic resonance (MR) image data sets from 16 patients aged 21–71 years with high-grade gliomas. Each MR data set was rated twice by using manual tracing and twice by using the semiautomated method. The semiautomated measurement method involved a thresholding algorithm based on mixture modeling. The data collection time for each method was recorded. Reliability was measured by using inter- and intraoperator agreement indexes.

RESULTS: Mean intraoperator agreement indexes (± SD) were 0.90 ± 0.09 (operator 1) and 0.83 ± 0.15 (operator 2) for the manual trace method and 0.83 ± 0.17 (operator 1) and 0.84 ± 0.16 (operator 2) for the semiautomated measurement method. The mean interoperator agreement was 0.85 ± 0.14 for the manual method and 0.82 ± 0.18 for the semiautomated method. The semiautomated method was faster than the manual trace method by an average of 4.6 minutes per patient.

CONCLUSION: The semiautomated computer method of measuring tumor volume was faster than the manual trace method. Semiautomated computer approaches offer an alternative to manual tracing for measuring serial tumor volumes in patients with high-grade brain neoplasms.

Index terms: Brain neoplasms, 10.363, 10.3634 • Brain neoplasms, MR, 10.12141, 10.12143 • Magnetic resonance (MR), volume measurement, 10.12141, 10.12143 • Technology assessment




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Neuro OncolHome page
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]

Home page
 Am. J. Neuroradiol.Home page
Y. Kimura, M. Sumi, Y. Ichikawa, Y. Kawai, and T. Nakamura
Volumetric MR Imaging of Oral, Maxillary Sinus, Oropharyngeal, and Hypopharyngeal Cancers: Correlation between Tumor Volume and Lymph Node Metastasis
AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., October 1, 2005; 26(9): 2384 - 2389.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. Radiol.Home page
B Cornelissen, V Kersemans, L Jans, L Staelens, R Oltenfreiter, T Thonissen, E Achten, and G Slegers
Comparison between 1 T MRI and non-MRI based volumetry in inoculated tumours in mice
Br. J. Radiol., April 1, 2005; 78(928): 338 - 342.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
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]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
J. P. Ko, H. Rusinek, E. L. Jacobs, J. S. Babb, M. Betke, G. McGuinness, and D. P. Naidich
Small Pulmonary Nodules: Volume Measurement at Chest CT--Phantom Study
Radiology, September 1, 2003; 228(3): 864 - 870.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 NeurologyHome page
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]

Home page
 Am. J. Neuroradiol.Home page
G. Moonis, J. Liu, J. K. Udupa, and D. B. Hackney
Estimation of Tumor Volume with Fuzzy-Connectedness Segmentation of MR Images
AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., March 1, 2002; 23(3): 356 - 363.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
M. R. Kaus, S. K. Warfield, A. Nabavi, P. M. Black, F. A. Jolesz, and R. Kikinis
Automated Segmentation of MR Images of Brain Tumors
Radiology, February 1, 2001; 218(2): 586 - 591.
[Abstract] [Full Text]