Different volumetric measurement methods for pituitary adenomas and their crucial clinical significance
Journal
Scientific Reports
Journal Volume
7
Pages
-
Date Issued
2017
Author(s)
Chuang C.-C.
Lin S.-Y.
Pai P.-C.
Yan J.-L.
Toh C.-H.
Lee S.-T.
Wei K.-C.
Liu Z.-H.
Wang Y.-C.
Lee C.-C.
Abstract
Confirming the status of residual tumors is crucial. In stationary or spontaneous regression cases, early treatments are inappropriate. The long-used geometric calculation formula is 1/2 (length × width × height). However, it yields only rough estimates and is particularly unreliable for irregularly shaped masses. In our study, we attempted to propose a more accurate method. Between 2004 and 2014, 94 patients with pituitary tumors were enrolled in this retrospective study. All patients underwent transsphenoidal surgery and received magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The pre- and postoperative volumes calculated using the traditional formula were termed A1 and A2, and those calculated using the proposed method were termed O1 and O2, respectively. Wilcoxon signed rank test revealed no significant difference between the A1 and O1 groups (P = 0.1810) but a significant difference between the A2 and O2 groups (P < 0.0001). Significant differences were present in the extent of resection (P < 0.0001), high-grade cavernous sinus invasion (P = 0.0312), and irregular shape (P = 0.0116). Volume is crucial in evaluating tumor status and determining treatment. Therefore, a more scientific method is especially useful when lesions are irregularly shaped or when treatment is determined exclusively based on the tumor volume.
SDGs
Other Subjects
adenoma; cancer grading; cancer staging; female; human; hypophysis tumor; male; middle aged; nuclear magnetic resonance imaging; treatment outcome; tumor volume; Adenoma; Female; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Grading; Neoplasm Staging; Pituitary Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome; Tumor Burden
Type
journal article