AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025
Evaluation of Vestibular Schwannoma Size across Time: How Well Do the Experts Perform and What Can Be Improved?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bathla Girish, Mehta Parv M, Soni Neetu, Johnson Mathew, Benson John C, Messina Steven A, Farnsworth Paul, Agarwal Amit, Carlson Matthew L, Lane John I
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: 2D linear measurements are often used in routine clinical practice during vestibular schwannoma (VS) follow-up, primarily due to wider availability and ease of use. We sought to determine the radiologist's performance compared with 3D-volumetry, along with the impact of the number of linear measurements, slice thickness, and tumor volumes on these parameters.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Specificity and accuracy estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the entire cohort and subgroups on the basis of volumes (<400, 400-800, >800 mm3), slice thickness (≤1.5 mm or >1.5 mm), and number of linear dimensions measured in the radiology report (0-1 or 2-3).
RESULTS: There was weak agreement between the radiologist's inference and VS volumetry (0.45; 95% CI. 0.41-00.53). Agreement was lower when 0-1 tumor dimension was measured (0.29; 95% CI, 0.21-0.42), for smaller tumors of <400 mm3 (0.37; 95% CI, 0.28-0.45), and for thick-section imaging of >1.5 mm (0.36; 95% CI, 0.25-0.46). The reader sensitivity was modest (0.49-0.54), while the accuracy for detecting ≤ ±25% interval change was weak (0.32-0.38). Reader performance trended toward improvement with thin-section imaging, measurement of 2-3 VS dimensions, and larger tumors.
CONCLUSIONS: In routine practice, radiologists show poor agreement with volumetric results and sensitivity to detect interval change and overall poor accuracy for volumetric changes of ≤ ± 25% in volume. In the absence of volumetric measurements, radiologists need to be more diligent when evaluating interval changes in VS.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Specificity and accuracy estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the entire cohort and subgroups on the basis of volumes (<400, 400-800, >800 mm3), slice thickness (≤1.5 mm or >1.5 mm), and number of linear dimensions measured in the radiology report (0-1 or 2-3).
RESULTS: There was weak agreement between the radiologist's inference and VS volumetry (0.45; 95% CI. 0.41-00.53). Agreement was lower when 0-1 tumor dimension was measured (0.29; 95% CI, 0.21-0.42), for smaller tumors of <400 mm3 (0.37; 95% CI, 0.28-0.45), and for thick-section imaging of >1.5 mm (0.36; 95% CI, 0.25-0.46). The reader sensitivity was modest (0.49-0.54), while the accuracy for detecting ≤ ±25% interval change was weak (0.32-0.38). Reader performance trended toward improvement with thin-section imaging, measurement of 2-3 VS dimensions, and larger tumors.
CONCLUSIONS: In routine practice, radiologists show poor agreement with volumetric results and sensitivity to detect interval change and overall poor accuracy for volumetric changes of ≤ ± 25% in volume. In the absence of volumetric measurements, radiologists need to be more diligent when evaluating interval changes in VS.