Different Volumetric Measurement Methods for Pituitary Adenomas and Their Crucial Clinical Significance 1Scientific RepoRts | 7 40792 | DOI 10 1038/srep40792 www nature com/scientificreports Different[.]
www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN received: 02 August 2016 accepted: 09 December 2016 Published: 18 January 2017 Different Volumetric Measurement Methods for Pituitary Adenomas and Their Crucial Clinical Significance Chi-Cheng Chuang2,6, Shinn-Yn Lin3,6, Ping-Ching Pai3,6, Jiun-Lin Yan5,6, Cheng-Hong Toh4,6, Shih-Tseng Lee2,6, Kuo-Chen Wei2,6, Zhuo-Hao Liu2,6, Chung-Ming Chen1, Yu-Chi Wang2,6 & Cheng-Chi Lee1,2,6 Confirming the status of residual tumors is crucial In stationary or spontaneous regression cases, early treatments are inappropriate The long-used geometric calculation formula is 1/2 (length × width × height) However, it yields only rough estimates and is particularly unreliable for irregularly shaped masses In our study, we attempted to propose a more accurate method Between 2004 and 2014, 94 patients with pituitary tumors were enrolled in this retrospective study All patients underwent transsphenoidal surgery and received magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) The pre- and postoperative volumes calculated using the traditional formula were termed A1 and A2, and those calculated using the proposed method were termed O1 and O2, respectively Wilcoxon signed rank test revealed no significant difference between the A1 and O1 groups (P = 0.1810) but a significant difference between the A2 and O2 groups (P