Abstract: Purpose: For patients with vestibular schwannomas (VS), a conservative observational approach is increasingly used. Therefore, the need for accurate and reliable volumetric tumor monitoring is important. Currently, a volumetric cutoff of 20% increase in tumor volume is widely used to define tumor growth in VS. The study investigates the tumor volume dependency on the limits of agreement (LoA) for volumetric measurements of VS by means of an inter-observer study.
Methods: This retrospective study included 100 VS patients who underwent contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI. Five observers volumetrically annotated the images. Observer agreement and reliability was measured using the LoA, estimated using the limits of agreement with the mean (LOAM) method, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
Results: The 100 patients had a median average tumor volume of 903 mm 3 (IQR: 193-3101). Patients were divided into four volumetric size categories based on tumor volume quartile. The smallest tumor volume quartile showed a LOAM relative to the mean of 26.8% (95% CI: 23.7-33.6), whereas for the largest tumor volume quartile this figure was found to be 7.3% (95% CI: 6.5-9.7) and when excluding peritumoral cysts: 4.8% (95% CI: 4.2-6.2).
Conclusion: Agreement limits within volumetric annotation of VS are affected by tumor volume, since the LoA improves with increasing tumor volume. As a result, for tumors larger than 200 mm 3 , growth can reliably be detected at an earlier stage, compared to the currently widely used cutoff of 20%. However, for very small tumors, growth should be assessed with higher agreement limits than previously thought.
(© 2024. The Author(s).)
References: Reznitsky M, Petersen MMBS, West N et al (2019) Epidemiology of vestibular schwannomas – prospective 40-year data from an unselected national cohort. Clin Epidemiol 11:981–986. https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S218670. (PMID: 10.2147/CLEP.S218670318070806850685)
Carlson ML, Link MJ (2021) Vestibular Schwannomas. N Engl J Med 384:1335–1348. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra2020394. (PMID: 10.1056/NEJMra202039433826821)
Carlson ML, Habermann EB, Wagie AE et al (2015) The Changing Landscape of Vestibular Schwannoma Management in the United States - A Shift Toward Conservatism. Otolaryngol – Head Neck Surger (United States) 153:440–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599815590105. (PMID: 10.1177/0194599815590105)
Lin EP, Crane BT (2017) The management and imaging of vestibular schwannomas. Am J Neuroradiol 38:2034–2043. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A5213. (PMID: 10.3174/ajnr.A5213285462505690865)
Stangerup SE, Caye-Thomasen P, Tos M, Thomsen J (2006) The natural history of vestibular schwannoma. Otol Neurotol 27:547–552. https://doi.org/10.1097/00129492-200606000-00018. (PMID: 10.1097/00129492-200606000-0001816791048)
Stangerup SE, Thomsen J, Tos M, Cayé-Thomasen P (2010) Long-term hearing preservation in vestibular schwannoma. Otol Neurotol 31:271–275. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181c34bda. (PMID: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181c34bda19887973)
Marinelli JP, Schnurman Z, Killeen DE et al (2022) Long-term natural history and patterns of sporadic vestibular schwannoma growth: A multi-institutional volumetric analysis of 952 patients. Neuro Oncol 24:1298–1306. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noab303. (PMID: 10.1093/neuonc/noab30334964894)
Halliday J, Rutherford SA, McCabe MG, Evans DG (2018) An update on the diagnosis and treatment of vestibular schwannoma. Expert Rev Neurother 18:29–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737175.2018.1399795. (PMID: 10.1080/14737175.2018.139979529088993)
Cross JJ, Baguley DM, Antoun NM et al (2006) Reproducibility of volume measurements of vestibular schwannomas - A preliminary study. Clin Otolaryngol 31:123–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-4486.2006.01161.x. (PMID: 10.1111/j.1749-4486.2006.01161.x16620331)
MacKeith S, Das T, Graves M et al (2018) A comparison of semi-automated volumetric vs linear measurement of small vestibular schwannomas. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 275:867–874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-018-4865-z. (PMID: 10.1007/s00405-018-4865-z293357805838150)
Van De Langenberg R, De Bondt BJ, Nelemans PJ et al (2009) Follow-up assessment of vestibular schwannomas: Volume quantification versus two-dimensional measurements. Neuroradiology 51:517–524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-009-0529-4. (PMID: 10.1007/s00234-009-0529-4194180462710491)
Lees KA, Tombers NM, Link MJ et al (2018) Natural History of Sporadic Vestibular Schwannoma: A Volumetric Study of Tumor Growth. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg (United States) 159:535–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599818770413. (PMID: 10.1177/0194599818770413)
Varughese JK, Wentzel-Larsen T, Vassbotn F et al (2010) Analysis of vestibular schwannoma size in multiple dimensions: A comparative cohort study of different measurement techniques. Clin Otolaryngol 35:97–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-4486.2010.02099.x. (PMID: 10.1111/j.1749-4486.2010.02099.x20500578)
Neve OM, Chen Y, Tao Q, et al (2022) Fully Automated 3D Vestibular Schwannoma Segmentation with and without Gadolinium Contrast: A Multicenter, Multivendor Study. Radiol Artif Intell https://doi.org/10.1148/ryai.210300.
McGrath H, Li P, Dorent R et al (2020) Manual segmentation versus semi-automated segmentation for quantifying vestibular schwannoma volume on MRI. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 15:1445–1455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-020-02222-y. (PMID: 10.1007/s11548-020-02222-y326768697419453)
Shapey J, Wang G, Dorent R et al (2021) An artificial intelligence framework for automatic segmentation and volumetry of vestibular schwannomas from contrast-enhanced T1-weighted and high-resolution T2-weighted MRI. J Neurosurg 134:171–179. https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.9.JNS191949. (PMID: 10.3171/2019.9.JNS19194931812137)
Lee CC, Lee WK, Wu CC et al (2021) Applying artificial intelligence to longitudinal imaging analysis of vestibular schwannoma following radiosurgery. Sci Rep 11:3106. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82665-8. (PMID: 10.1038/s41598-021-82665-8335424227862268)
Lawson McLean AC, McLean AL, Rosahl SK (2016) Evaluating vestibular schwannoma size and volume on magnetic resonance imaging: An inter- and intra-rater agreement study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 145:68–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.04.010. (PMID: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.04.01027101086)
Tolisano AM, Wick CC, Hunter JB (2019) Comparing Linear and Volumetric Vestibular Schwannoma Measurements Between T1 and T2 Magnetic Resonance Imaging Sequences. Otol Neurotol 40:S67–S71. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002208. (PMID: 10.1097/MAO.000000000000220831225825)
Klijn S, Verheul JB, Beute GN et al (2016) Gamma Knife radiosurgery for vestibular schwannomas: Evaluation of tumor control and its predictors in a large patient cohort in the Netherlands. J Neurosurg 124:1619–1626. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.4.JNS142415. (PMID: 10.3171/2015.4.JNS14241526430848)
Langenhuizen PPJH, Zinger S, Hanssens PEJ et al (2019) Influence of pretreatment growth rate on Gamma Knife treatment response for vestibular schwannoma: A volumetric analysis. J Neurosurg 131:1405–1412. https://doi.org/10.3171/2018.6.JNS18516. (PMID: 10.3171/2018.6.JNS1851630497177)
Zou GY (2012) Sample size formulas for estimating intraclass correlation coefficients with precision and assurance. Stat Med 31:3972–3981. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5466. (PMID: 10.1002/sim.546622764084)
Christensen HS, Borgbjerg J, Børty L, Bøgsted M (2020) On Jones et al’.s method for extending Bland-Altman plots to limits of agreement with the mean for multiple observers. BMC Med Res Methodol 20:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01182-w. (PMID: 10.1186/s12874-020-01182-w)
Koo TK, Li MY (2016) A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med 15:155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012273305204913118)
Popovic ZB, Thomas JD (2017) Assessing observer variability: a user’s guide. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther 7:317. https://doi.org/10.21037/CDT.2017.03.12. (PMID: 10.21037/CDT.2017.03.12285673575440257)
Snell JW, Sheehan J, Stroila M, Steiner L (2006) Assessment of imaging studies used with radiosurgery: a volumetric algorithm and an estimation of its error. J Neurosurg 104:157–162. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.2006.104.1.157. (PMID: 10.3171/jns.2006.104.1.15716509161)
Processing Request
No Comments.