Objective: Accurate volume assessment is essential for the management of vestibular schwannoma after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). A cuboidal approximation for volume is the standard surveillance method; however, this may overestimate tumor volume. We sought to evaluate several volumetric models and their suitability for post-SRS surveillance.
Study design: Retrospective cohort study.
Setting: Tertiary referral center.
Patients: We evaluated 54 patients with vestibular schwannoma before and after SRS.
Intervention(s): Gold-standard volumes were obtained by a radiation oncologist using contouring software. Volume was also calculated by cuboidal, ellipsoidal, and spherical formulae using tumor diameters obtained by a neuroradiologist.
Main outcome measure(s): Percent error (PE) and absolute percent error (APE) were calculated. Paired t test evaluated bias, and the Bland-Altman method evaluated reproducibility. Linear regression evaluated predictors of model error.
Results: All models overestimated volume compared with the gold standard. The cuboidal model was not reproducible before SRS (p < 0.001), and no model was reproducible after SRS (cuboidal p < 0.001; ellipsoidal p = 0.02; spherical p = 0.02). Significant bias was present before SRS for the cuboidal model (p < 0.001), and post-SRS for all models [cuboidal (p < 0.001), ellipsoidal (p < 0.02), and spherical (p = 0.005)]. Model error was negatively associated with pretreatment volume for the cuboidal (PE p = 0.03; APE p = 0.03), ellipsoidal (PE p = 0.03; APE p = 0.04), and spherical (PE p = 0.02; APE p = 0.03) methods and lost linearity post-SRS.
Conclusions: The standard cuboidal practice for following vestibular schwannoma tumor volume after SRS overestimates size. Ellipsoidal and spherical estimations have improved performance but also overestimate volume and lack reliability post-SRS. The development of other volumetric models or application of contouring software should be investigated.