• Radiology · Mar 2009

    Tumor burden in patients with neurofibromatosis types 1 and 2 and schwannomatosis: determination on whole-body MR images.

    • Wenli Cai, Ara Kassarjian, Miriam A Bredella, Gordon J Harris, Hiroyuki Yoshida, Victor F Mautner, Ralph Wenzel, and Scott R Plotkin.
    • Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 25 New Chardon St, 400C, Boston, MA 02114, USA. cai.wenli@mgh.harvard.edu
    • Radiology. 2009 Mar 1; 250 (3): 665-73.

    PurposeTo develop a three-dimensional (3D) segmentation and computerized volumetry technique for use in the assessment of neurofibromatosis and to assess the ability of this technique to aid in the calculation of tumor burden in patients with neurofibromatosis types 1 and 2 (NF1 and NF2, respectively) and schwannomatosis detected with whole-body magnetic resonance (MR) imaging.Materials And MethodsInstitutional review board approval and written informed consent were obtained for this prospective HIPAA-compliant study. Fifty-two subjects (27 women, 25 men; mean age, 42 years +/- 15 [standard deviation]; age range, 24-86 years) underwent whole-body MR imaging performed with coronal short inversion time inversion-recovery (STIR) sequences. Whole-body tumor burden was estimated with a 3D segmentation method (the dynamic-threshold [DT] level set method) in 29 subjects (16 with NF1, six with NF2, and seven with schwannomatosis) in whom at least one nerve sheath tumor was reliably identified on MR images. Fifty tumors (25 plexiform and 25 discrete tumors) were randomly selected and subjected to manual and computerized volumetry to assess reliability. Ten plexiform tumors 5 cm or larger in diameter were retrospectively selected and segmented with three initialization methods for computerized volumetry and manually contoured by three radiologists to assess repeatability. Bland-Altman analysis was performed, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated.ResultsA total of 398 nerve sheath tumors (185 plexiform and 213 discrete tumors) were identified in 29 subjects. Volumetric measurements obtained with the computerized method and manual contouring were highly correlated (r(ICC) = 0.99). Bland-Altman analysis showed that computerized volumetry had a mean difference of -2.6% compared with manual volumetry. The repeatability coefficient of the computerized scheme was +/-5% compared with +/-30% for manual contouring.ConclusionThis 3D segmentation and computerized volumetry technique is reliable relative to manual segmentation and has the advantage of being less labor intensive and more repeatable. This technique can be paired with whole-body MR imaging to determine tumor burden in patients with neurofibromatosis.Supplemental Materialhttp://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/250/3/665/DC1RSNA, 2009

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.