|
|
Diffuse low-grade glioma: What is the optimal linear measure to assess tumor growth? 
Auteur(s): dos Santos Thomas, Deverdun J., Chaptal Thierry, Darlix Amélie, Duffau Hugues, van Dokkum Liesjet, Coget Arthur, Carrière Mathilde, Denis Eve, Verdier Margaux, Menjot De Champfleur N., Le Bars E.
(Article) Publié:
Neuro-Oncology Advances, vol. 6 p.vdae044 (2024)
Texte intégral en Openaccess : 
Ref HAL: hal-04669355_v1
PMID 39071735
DOI: 10.1093/noajnl/vdae044
Exporter : BibTex | endNote
Résumé: Background: 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.Methods: 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 magnetic resonance imaging 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.Results: 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 the 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.Conclusions: 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.
|
