Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a clinical demand for rapid estimation of meningioma volumes. Our objective was to assess the accuracy of three ABC-derived and three SH-derived formula methods on volume estimation of meningiomas. METHODS: The study group comprised 678 patients treated at our department for histopathologically proven intracranial meningiomas. For each patient, tumor volumes were independently measured using six formula methods as well as planimetry. Maximum tumor diameter and ellipsoidity were also recorded. Volumes were compared using descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and consistency analysis. RESULTS: Among all methods assessed, 2/3SH and 1/2ABC outperformed the others. No significant differences were found between volumes obtained by the two methods and those of planimetry (p > 0.05). Spearman rank-correlation coefficients (r (s) ) were 0.99 for both methods (p < 0.01), and ICC were 0.99 and 0.98, respectively. In Bland-Altman plot, most data points lay inside the limit of agreement. Overall, 2/3SH overestimated tumor volumes by 1.29%, and estimation errors in 93.66% cases were within 20%; 1/2ABC overestimated tumor volumes by 5.36%, and estimation errors in 93.51% cases were within 30%. The performance of 2/3SH and 1/2ABC in small-volume meningiomas was slightly worse, especially for 1/2ABC. Correlations between ellipsoidity and percentage errors of 2/3SH and 1/2ABC were weak (r (s) = -0.06 and -0.24, respectively). Despite a significant correlation between maximum tumor diameter and planimetric volume (r (s) = -0.96), volumes could vary significantly for a given diameter. CONCLUSIONS: Formula methods 2/3SH and 1/2ABC can estimate meningioma volumes with decent accuracy. Compared with the 1/2ABC method, the 2/3SH method showed slightly better performance, especially in small-volume meningiomas. Ellipsoidity is not a suitable parameter to predict estimation error, and maximum tumor diameter is not a reliable surrogate for actual meningioma volume.