Acta Neurochir (2016) 158:677–683
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, [4/3 π (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 (R2 = 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, fol- lowing 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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.