
AIM: To determine which of several pathological methods of measuring lung cancer volume compared most favourably with the gold standard. METHODS: Three pathological methods were used on 54 resected lung cancers: (1) measuring the maximum dimension and assuming a spherical shape; (2) measuring three dimensions and assuming an ellipsoidal shape; and (3) deriving the volume from the area of tumour on sequential 1 cm slices using a photocopier and an image analysis system. The gold standard was obtained from the area of whole mount tumour sections on sequential 0.1 cm slices of eight cancers. RESULTS: Volumes derived from 1 cm lung slices gave results closest to our gold standard but assuming tumours were ellipsoidal was only a slightly less accurate and less time consuming method. Assuming cancers were spherical resulted in gross overestimation of the tumour volumes. CONCLUSIONS: For practical purposes, it is reasonable to measure three dimensions of a lung tumour at sectioning and calculate the volume using the formula for an ellipsoid (V = 4/3 pi d.e.f, where d, e and f are the semi-axes).
Diagnostic Imaging, Lung Neoplasms, Carcinoma, Humans
Diagnostic Imaging, Lung Neoplasms, Carcinoma, Humans
| citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 6 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
