Comparing size evaluation methods for acoustic neuroma after stereotactic radiosurgery.
OBJECTIVE
Acoustic neuroma tumor size may be evaluated using several methods. Here we investigate the variations among measuring techniques.


METHODS
A retrospective analysis of pre- and posttreatment magnetic resonance (MR) scans was performed on 15 acoustic neuroma patients with a history of stereotactic radiosurgery who had been followed for more than 2 years. Tumor size was measured on each MR scan using three methods, where the extracanalicular (EX) and intracanalicular (IN) portions were measured separately. We collected data on the largest diameter (M1), the square root of the product of the maximum anteroposterior and mediolateral diameter (M2), and the average for the maximum anteroposterior, mediolateral, and superoinferior diameters (M3). Size differences between follow-up MR scans separated by more than 2 years were calculated for each method, and we evaluated whether the tumors progressed, remained stable, or regressed.


RESULTS
A total of 154 follow-up pairs of EX and 115 follow-up pairs of IN showed a statistically significant difference for the number of each category among the three methods (P = 0.03, P < 0.01, respectively). The greatest category agreement was observed between the M2 and M3 methods.


CONCLUSIONS
A significant difference between the tumor size measuring methods was observed. To strengthen specificity when evaluating tumor size difference, a measuring method using two or more parameters is recommended.
Saito
Anneyuko I
AI
Department of Radiation Oncology, Health Science Center, University of Florida, PO Box 100385, Gainesville, FL 32610-0385, USA. anyusaike@yahoo.co.jp
Morris
Christopher G
CG
Ito
Kana
K
Watanabe
Futoshi
F
Karasawa
Kumiko
K
Mendenhall
William M
WM
Naoi
Yutaka
Y
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D016477:Artifacts; D018450:Disease Progression; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009464:Neuroma, Acoustic / Q000473:pathology* / Q000601:surgery*; D016634:Radiosurgery / Q000379:methods*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013238:Stereotaxic Techniques; D016896:Treatment Outcome
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 Feb 2;92 (3):205-16
10655437
Otol Neurotol. 2003 Jul;24(4):666-70; discussion 670-1
12851562
Laryngoscope. 1993 Oct;103(10):1093-6
8412443
J Neurosurg. 2000 Dec;93 Suppl 3:82-9
11143269
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2000 Sep;21(8):1540-6
11003293
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1995 Sep;113(3):179-80
7675475
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1991 Nov-Dec;12 (6):1165-75
1763744
Otol Neurotol. 2005 Jul;26(4):733-40
16015177
Laryngoscope. 2000 Apr;110(4):497-508
10763994
Am J Otol. 1997 Sep;18(5):602-7
9303157
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1992 Feb;118(2):127-33
1540340
Am J Otol. 1999 Mar;20(2):244-8
10100530
J Neurosurg. 2005 Jul;103(1):53-8
16121973
Otol Neurotol. 2005 May;26(3):512-5
15891658
J Magn Reson Imaging. 1996 Jul-Aug;6(4):700-4
8835966
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2002 Mar;23(3):459-67
11901019
Neurosurgery. 2003 Sep;53(3):634-7; discussion 637-8
12943580
Med J Osaka Univ. 1991 Mar;40(1-4):59-66
1369658
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000 Dec;12(6):826-32
11105020
No Shinkei Geka. 1993 Oct;21(10 ):909-13
8413804
Am J Otol. 2000 Sep;21(5):716-21
10993465
Laryngoscope. 2000 Jul;110(7):1194-7
10892695
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999 Mar 17;91(6):523-8
10088622
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2000 May;21(5):810-6
10815653
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1999 Aug;20(7):1207-13
10472973