Volumetric measurement of intracranial meningiomas: a comparison between linear, planimetric, and machine learning with multiparametric voxel-based morphometry methods.

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of three volumetric methods in the radiological assessment of meningiomas: linear (ABC/2), planimetric, and multiparametric machine learning-based semiautomated voxel-based morphometry (VBM), and to investigate the relevance of tumor shape in volumetric error.

METHODS

Retrospective imaging database analysis at the authors' institutions. We included patients with a confirmed diagnosis of meningioma and preoperative cranial magnetic resonance imaging eligible for volumetric analyses. After tumor segmentation, images underwent automated computation of shape properties such as sphericity, roundness, flatness, and elongation.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients (85 tumors) were included. Tumor volumes were significantly different using linear (13.82 cm [range 0.13-163.74 cm]), planimetric (11.66 cm [range 0.17-196.2 cm]) and VBM methods (10.24 cm [range 0.17-190.32 cm]) (p < 0.001). Median volume and percentage errors between the planimetric and linear methods and the VBM method were 1.08 cm and 11.61%, and 0.23 cm and 5.5%, respectively. Planimetry and linear methods overestimated the actual volume in 79% and 63% of the patients, respectively. Correlation studies showed excellent reliability and volumetric agreement between manual- and computer-based methods. Larger and flatter tumors had greater accuracy on planimetry, whereas less rounded tumors contributed negatively to the accuracy of the linear method.

CONCLUSION

Semiautomated VBM volumetry for meningiomas is not influenced by tumor shape properties, whereas planimetry and linear methods tend to overestimate tumor volume. Furthermore, it is necessary to consider tumor roundness prior to linear measurement so as to choose the most appropriate method for each patient on an individual basis.