We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Assessing size of pituitary adenomas: a comparison of qualitative and quantitative methods on MR.
Acta Neurochirurgica 2016 April
BACKGROUND: A variety of methods are used for estimating pituitary tumour size in clinical practice and in research. Quantitative methods, such as maximum tumour dimension, and qualitative methods, such as Hardy and Knosp grades, are well established but do not give an accurate assessment of the tumour volume. We therefore sought to compare existing measures of pituitary tumours with more quantitative methods of tumour volume estimation.
METHOD: Magnetic resonance imaging was reviewed for 99 consecutive patients with pituitary adenomas awaiting surgery between 2010 and 2013. Maximal tumour diameter, Hardy and Knosp grades were compared with tumour volume estimates by the ellipsoid equation, [4/3π (a,b,c)], (i.e. ellipsoid volume) and slice-by-slice perimetry (i.e. perimeter volume).
RESULTS: Ellipsoid and perimeter methods of tumour volume estimation strongly correlated (R(2) = 0.99, p < 0.0001). However the correlation was less strong with increasing tumour size, with the ellipsoid method slightly underestimating. The mean differences were -0.11 (95 % CI, -0.35, 0.14), -0.74 (95 % CI, -2.2, 0.74) and -1.4 (95 % CI, -6.4, 3.7) for micro-tumours, macro-tumours and giant tumours respectively. Tumour volume correlated with maximal diameter, following a cubic distribution. Correlations of tumour volume with Hardy and Knosp grades was less strong.
CONCLUSIONS: Perimeter and ellipsoid methods give a good estimation of tumour volume, whereas Knosp and Hardy grades may offer other clinically relevant information, such as cavernous sinus invasion or chiasmal compression. Thus the different methods of estimating tumour size are likely to have different clinical utilities.
METHOD: Magnetic resonance imaging was reviewed for 99 consecutive patients with pituitary adenomas awaiting surgery between 2010 and 2013. Maximal tumour diameter, Hardy and Knosp grades were compared with tumour volume estimates by the ellipsoid equation, [4/3π (a,b,c)], (i.e. ellipsoid volume) and slice-by-slice perimetry (i.e. perimeter volume).
RESULTS: Ellipsoid and perimeter methods of tumour volume estimation strongly correlated (R(2) = 0.99, p < 0.0001). However the correlation was less strong with increasing tumour size, with the ellipsoid method slightly underestimating. The mean differences were -0.11 (95 % CI, -0.35, 0.14), -0.74 (95 % CI, -2.2, 0.74) and -1.4 (95 % CI, -6.4, 3.7) for micro-tumours, macro-tumours and giant tumours respectively. Tumour volume correlated with maximal diameter, following a cubic distribution. Correlations of tumour volume with Hardy and Knosp grades was less strong.
CONCLUSIONS: Perimeter and ellipsoid methods give a good estimation of tumour volume, whereas Knosp and Hardy grades may offer other clinically relevant information, such as cavernous sinus invasion or chiasmal compression. Thus the different methods of estimating tumour size are likely to have different clinical utilities.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app