Measuring pituitary tumor volume: a comparison of the simplified and non-simplified ellipsoid equation with the 3D planimetric volume assessment
Authors' conclusion
A simplified form of the ellipsoid equation increases the divergence between the measurement obtained in planimetry, and should be discouraged, in view of the new automated methods of performing quick calculations using periodic digits. The non-simplified form underestimated the tumor volume by 2.9% on average but did so regularly. In clinical practice, measurement should be accompanied by an evaluation of tumor morphology.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with pituitary tumors aged 15 to 78 years (mean 47.95 ± 14.76); 43 males, 39 females
- Participants
- 82 patients
- Exposure
- Simplified vs non-simplified ellipsoid equation vs 3D planimetric volume assessment
- Outcome
- Estimated tumor volume
Methodological detailsobservational, analytical, with systematic review of the literature
- Observational
- Analytical
- With systematic review of the literature
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Knosp grade distribution
- Knosp grade 0
- 7 (8.5%)
- Knosp grade 1
- 36 (44%)
- Knosp grade 2
- 14 (17%)
- Knosp grade 3
- 20 (24.4%)
- Knosp grade 4
- 5 (6.1%)
Original publication
Measuring pituitary tumor volume: a comparison of the simplified and non-simplified ellipsoid equation with the 3D planimetric volume assessment. Pituitary. Published 28 April 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →