BACKGROUND Detection of progression is clinically important for the management of glioblastoma. We sought to assess the accuracy of clinical radiological reporting and measured bidimensional products to identify radiological glioblastoma progression. The two were compared to volumetric segmentation. METHODS In this retrospective study, we included 106 patients with histopathologically verified glioblastomas and two separate MRI scans obtained before surgery. Bidimensional products based on measurements on the axial slice with the largest tumor area were calculated, and growth estimations from the clinical radiological reports were retrieved. The two growth estimations were compared to manual volumetric segmentations. Inter-observer agreement using the bidimensional product was assessed using Kappa-statistics and by calculating the difference between two neuroradiologist in percentage change of the bidimensional product for each tumor. RESULTS Clinical radiological reports and bidimensional products showed fairly equal accuracy when compared to volumetric segmentation with an accuracy of 67% and 66-68%, respectively. There was a difference in median volume increase of 6.9 mL (2.4 vs 9.3 mL, p < 0.001) between tumors evaluated as stable and progressed based on the clinical radiological reports. This difference was 8.1 mL (2.0 vs 10.1 ml, p < 0.001) when using the bidimensional products. The bidimensional product reached a moderate inter-observer agreement with a Kappa value of 0.689. For 32% of the tumors, the two neuroradiologists calculated a difference of more than 25% using bidimensional products. CONCLUSIONS Clinical radiological reporting and the bidimensional product exhibit similar accuracy. The bidimensional product has moderate inter-observer agreement and is prone to underestimating tumor progression, as an average glioblastoma had to grow 10 mL in order to be classified as progressed. These findings underline the assumption that one should try to move towards volumetric assessment of glioblastoma growth in the future.

中文翻译：

---

与二维产品和临床放射学报告相比，胶质母细胞瘤进展的体积分割。

背景技术进展的检测对于胶质母细胞瘤的管理在临床上很重要。我们试图评估临床放射报告和测量的二维产品的准确性，以鉴定放射胶质母细胞瘤的进展。将两者与体积分割进行比较。方法在这项回顾性研究中，我们纳入了106名经病理组织学证实为胶质母细胞瘤的患者，并在手术前进行了两次MRI扫描。计算基于在肿瘤最大的轴向切片上测量得到的二维乘积，并从临床放射学报告中获得生长估计。将这两个增长估计值与手动体积分割进行了比较。使用Kappa统计量并通过计算两位神经放射科医生在每个肿瘤的二维积的百分比变化中的差异来评估使用二维积的观察者之间的一致性。结果与体积分割相比，临床放射学报告和二维产品显示的准确性相当，分别为67％和66-68％。根据临床放射学报告评估为稳定和进展的肿瘤之间，中位体积增加6.9 mL（2.4 vs 9.3 mL，p <0.001）。使用二维产品时，此差异为8.1 mL（2.0对10.1 ml，p <0.001）。二维产品在观察者之间达成了中度协议，Kappa值为0.689。对于32％的肿瘤，两位神经放射科医生使用二维产品计算得出的差异超过25％。结论临床放射学报告和二维产品显示出相似的准确性。二维产品具有中等观察者之间的一致性，并且容易低估肿瘤的进展，因为平均胶质母细胞瘤必须生长10 mL才能被分类为进展。这些发现强调了这样一种假设，即将来应该尝试对胶质母细胞瘤的生长进行体积评估。通常，胶质母细胞瘤必须生长10毫升才能被分类为进展。这些发现强调了这样一种假设，即将来应该尝试对胶质母细胞瘤的生长进行体积评估。通常，胶质母细胞瘤必须生长10毫升才能被分类为进展。这些发现强调了这样一种假设，即将来应该尝试对胶质母细胞瘤的生长进行体积评估。