Reliability of measuring volume by different methods for tumors of the musculoskeletal system.

In the present study different methods for determining the volume of a tumor were evaluated. For 12 models, the real volume, the volume according to measurement of the surface area on MRI, an ellipsoid and a cylindrical approximation of the volume, as well as the maximum diameter, were determined. There appeared to be a good correlation between all calculated volumes and the real volume. The error (mean: 17%) and the standard deviation (SD: 14%) on this error were smallest if the volume was determined by means of determination of the surface area. The ellipsoid approximation resulted in a smaller error (mean: 0%) but a higher standard deviation (SD: 27%). The cylindrical approximation resulted in unacceptable deviations (mean: 51%; SD: 40%). Volume was significantly related to the maximal diameter to the power of 2.3. Volume calculated according to this power resulted in an error of 18%. Standard deviation in this case however was unacceptable (SD: 89%). Volume calculation based upon the determination of the surface area has given the best and most reliable results. Ellipsoid approximation was less reliable, but faster and cheaper. Cylindrical approximation was unacceptable. Size, expressed as maximal diameter of the tumor, was also unacceptable as a parameter for volume.

[1]  H J Mankin,et al.  Chondrosarcoma of bone: an assessment of outcome. , 1999, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[2]  J N Brunt,et al.  Determination of tumour regression rates during radiotherapy for cervical carcinoma by serial MRI: comparison of two measurement techniques and examination of intraobserver and interobserver variability. , 1999, The British journal of radiology.

[3]  J. W. van der Eijken,et al.  Ewing's sarcoma of the pelvis: changes over 25 years in treatment and results. , 1997, European journal of cancer.

[4]  W. Winkelmann,et al.  Chondrosarcoma of the Pelvis , 1997, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[5]  J. W. Beck,et al.  Volume determinations using computed tomography. , 1982, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  A. Huvos,et al.  Prognostic factors for patients with sarcomas of the pelvic bones , 1998, Cancer.

[7]  R M Harrison,et al.  Partial volume effects in MRI studies of multiple sclerosis. , 1999, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[8]  J. Zalcberg,et al.  Accuracy of volume measurement using helical CT. , 1997, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[9]  B. I. Choi,et al.  Uterine cervical carcinoma: comparison of CT and MR findings. , 1990, Radiology.

[10]  N. Jaffe,et al.  Tumor size and prognosis in aggressively treated osteosarcoma. , 1996, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[11]  O. Monge,et al.  Prognostic factors in bone sarcomas. , 1997, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica. Supplementum.

[12]  R. Nelson,et al.  Acoustic neuroma volume: MRI‐based calculations and clinical implications , 1993, The Laryngoscope.

[13]  A. Davis,et al.  Prognostic factors in osteosarcoma: a critical review. , 1994, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  B. Fisher,et al.  Low Grade Glioma: A Measuring Radiographic Response to Radiotherapy , 1999, Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques.

[15]  J. Hermans,et al.  The value of MR imaging in monitoring the effect of chemotherapy on bone sarcomas. , 1990, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  D. Dahlin Prognostic factors in osteosarcoma. , 1980, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[17]  W. Winkelmann,et al.  Pelvic Ewing sarcoma , 1999, Cancer.