Reliability of hematoma volume measurement at local sites in a multicenter acute intracerebral hemorrhage clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The reliability of hematoma volume (HV) measurement using the ABC/2 method in multicenter clinical trials is unknown. We determined the accuracy of ABC/2 method as an on-site test in comparison with the gold standard central HV-assessment and semiautomatic HV-assessment. Method- We analyzed data from an acute intracerebral hemorrhage multicenter clinical trial. HV was measured by site investigators to determine enrollment eligibility (<60 cm(3)) using the ABC/2 method (on-site HV), and independently by the core-imaging laboratory using computer-based analysis (Medical Image Processing, Analysis, and Visualization [MIPAV] HV). HV was also measured by ABC/2 method (central HV) at the core-imaging laboratory to assess the difference in measurements between on-site (multiple raters with variable experiences) and central (single experienced rater) HVs. RESULTS Fifty-six subjects were analyzed (mean age 62±15 years; 45% women). On-site HV values showed a significantly lower correlation with the MIPAV HV (r=0.63) than central HV and MIPAV HV (r=0.93) values. The correlation between on-site HV and central HV values was modest (r=0.51). A total of 73% of the central HVs were within 25% of the corresponding MIPAV HVs, whereas only 46% of the on-site HVs were within 25% of the corresponding MIPAV HVs (P<0.001). One protocol violation occurred as a result of inaccuracy of on-site HV measurement. CONCLUSIONS On-site HV measurements showed high variability, but the impact on the eligibility determination was small. Centralized remeasurements of HVs with feedback to the sites may increase the reliability of the on-site HV measurements.