Volume comparison of AVM nidus and DAVF fistula between 4D-DSA and integrated stereotactic imaginga
| Diagnosis | 4D-DSA Volume (1st/2nd) (cm3) | MR Imaging Volume (cm3) | Conjoint Volume (1st/2nd) (cm3) | Disjoint Volume (1st/2nd) (cm3) | Volume Shown by 4D-DSA Only (1st/2nd) (cm3) | Volume Shown by MR Imaging Only (1st/2nd) (cm3) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DAVF | 14.51/11.4 | 13.16 | 8.07/7.55 | 11.52/9.46 | 6.44/3.85 | 5.08/5.61 |
| DAVF | 2.92/3.26 | 5.09 | 1.9/2.02 | 4.21/4.31 | 1.02/1.23 | 3.19/3.07 |
| DAVF | 3.13/2.38 | 1.63 | 0.81/0.82 | 3.14/2.37 | 2.31/1.56 | 0.82/0.81 |
| DAVF | 3.29/2.98 | 4.34 | 2.82/2.56 | 1.98/2.19 | 1.98/0.41 | 1.51/1.77 |
| DAVF | 2.1/1.94 | 3.57 | 1.71/1.65 | 2.23/2.19 | 0.38/0.28 | 1.85/1.91 |
| DAVF | 4.98/4.74 | 4.89 | 4.14/3.81 | 1.59/2 | 0.84/0.92 | 0.74/1.07 |
| DAVF | 1.84/1.94 | 1.83 | 1.24/1.16 | 1.18/1.44 | 0.6/0.78 | 0.58/0.66 |
| AVM | 5.82/6.1 | 9.52 | 5.78/6.02 | 3.78/3.57 | 0.04/0.07 | 3.73/3.5 |
| AVM | 0.1/0.09 | 0.12 | 0.07/0.06 | 0.07/0.08 | 0.02/0.03 | 0.04/0.05 |
| AVM | 12.19/12.2 | 14.87 | 11.63/11.6 | 3.8/3.87 | 0.56/0.6 | 3.24/3.27 |
| AVM | 3.56/3.79 | 3.56 | 2.46/2.55 | 2.19/2.25 | 1.09/1.24 | 1.09/1.01 |
| AVM | 0.15/0.16 | 0.18 | 0.11/0.12 | 0.1/0.1 | 0.03/0.06 | 0.06/0.04 |
| AVM | 4.2/3.99 | 5.01 | 3.54/3.43 | 2.12/2.13 | 0.66/0.56 | 1.46/1.57 |
| AVM | 3.93/3.86 | 5.86 | 3.83/3.67 | 2.12/2.37 | 0.09/0.18 | 2.02/2.19 |
| AVM | 3.61/3.31 | 3.42 | 3.18/2.95 | 0.68/0.83 | 0.43/0.36 | 0.24/0.47 |
| AVM | 1.18/1.16 | 1.3 | 1.02/1.01 | 0.43/0.45 | 0.15/0.15 | 0.27/0.29 |
↵a Target contouring on 4D-DSA was performed independently on Advanced Leksell GammaPlan Program by 2 physicians who were blinded to the MR images. In AVMs, the contoured volumes are smaller than those contoured on the basis of integrated stereotactic images. For DAVFs, the contouring on 4D-DSA was blocked; this outcome results in more prominent inconsistencies between volumes contoured on 4D-DSA and those of MR integrated stereotactic imaging.