A Methodological Evaluation of Volumetric Measurement Techniques including Three-Dimensional Imaging in Breast Surgery

Table 2

VIZ3D in situ versus VIZ3D sampling (“naive” operator).

(a)

Name	Side	VIZ3D_INSITU	VIZ3D_SAMP	dVIZisVISp
S1	G	205	190	15
S1	D	200	180	20
S2	L	485	490	−5
S2	R	380	385	−5
S3	L	280	315	−35
S3	R	320	390	−70
S4	L	70	130	−60
S4	R	180	220	−40
S5	L	330	385	−55
S5	R	285	325	−40
S6	L	105	140	−35
S6	R	135	130	5
S7	L	125	145	−20
S7	R	170	175	−5
S8	L	470	540	−70
S8	R	510	805	−295
S9	L	205	230	−25
S9	R	200	225	−25
	Mean ± SD	258.6±133.5	300.0±178.0	−41.4±68.9
	Median			−30
	P25–P75			−55–−5
	SD (robust)			37.0

(b)

Method 1	Method 2	𝑁	ICC	Difference	Paired Student’s 𝑡-test	Wilcoxon	CV (%)	Bland-Altman
			(ICC*)		𝑃 value	𝑃 value		𝑟 (𝑃 value)
VIZ3D in situ	VIZ3D sample	18	0.878 (0.698)	−41.4±68.9	0.021	0.0008	19.9	Pearson: −0.66 (0.0031)
								Spearman: −0.39 (0.10)

There was a significant difference of 41.4±68.9 cm³  (𝑃=0.021) between two methods. The in situ method underestimates the volume compared to the resection-based method.