Figure 3.

Tumour mass calculated from a) gauge block measurements,mGB, and b) 2D images,m2D, vs. tumour mass measured after resection,mT. a)mGB vs. mT (n = 12). The correlation was strong when all tumour sizes were included (R2 = 1.0), but was lower in the assessment of small tumours only (inserted figure; mT <0.2 g, n = 9, mGB = 0.78mT + 0.00, R2 = 0.65). The corresponding correlation for m3D-160 vs. mT for the same set of tumours was m3D-160 = 0.93mT + 0.00, R2 = 1.00 (mT <0.2 g: m3D-160 = 0.90mT + 0.00, R2 = 0.97). b) m2D vs. mT (n = 15). The correlation was strong when all tumour sizes were included (R2 = 0.99), and persisted in the assessment of small tumours only (inserted figure, mT <0.2 g, n = 9, m2D = 0.94mT + 0.00, R2 = 0.96). The corresponding correlation for m3D-160 vs. mT for the same set of tumours was m3D-160 = 0.93mT + 0.01, R2 = 1.0 (<0.2 g: m3D-160 = 0.91mT + 0.00, R2 = 0.98).

Montelius et al. BMC Medical Imaging 2012 12:12   doi:10.1186/1471-2342-12-12
Download authors' original image