scholarly journals Prostate volume measurement by multiparametric magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound: comparison with surgical specimen weight

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatiana Martins ◽  
Thais Caldara Mussi ◽  
Ronaldo Hueb Baroni
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Prostate Volume ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Volume Measurement ◽  
Surgical Specimen ◽  
Specimen Weight

The Comparison of Imaging and Clinical Methods to Estimate Prostate Volume: A Single-Centre Retrospective Study

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Matteo Massanova ◽  
Sophie Robertson ◽  
Biagio Barone ◽  
Lorenzo Dutto ◽  
Vincenzo Francesco Caputo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Prostate Volume ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy ◽  
Volume Measurement ◽  
Surgical Specimen ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Ellipsoid Volume

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Prostate volume (PV) is a useful tool in risk stratification, diagnosis, and follow-up of numerous prostatic diseases including prostate cancer and benign prostatic hypertrophy. There is currently no accepted ideal PV measurement method. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> This study compares multiple means of PV estimation, including digital rectal examination (DRE), transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and radical prostatectomy specimens to determine the best volume measurement style. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A retrospective, observational, single-site study with patients identified using an institutional database was performed. A total of 197 patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy were considered. Data collected included age, serum PSA at the time of the prostate biopsy, clinical T stage, Gleason score, and PVs for each of the following methods: DRE, TRUS, MRI, and surgical specimen weight (SPW) and volume. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A paired <i>t</i> test was performed, which reported a statistically significant difference between PV measures (DRE, TRUS, MRI ellipsoid, MRI bullet, SP ellipsoid, and SP bullet) and the actual prostate weight. Lowest differences were reported for SP ellipsoid volume (<i>M</i> = −2.37; standard deviation [SD] = 10.227; <i>t</i>[167] = −3.011; and <i>p</i> = 0.003), MRI ellipsoid volume (<i>M</i> = −4.318; SD = 9.53; <i>t</i>[167] = −5.87; and <i>p</i> = 0.000), and MRI bullet volume (<i>M</i> = 5.31; SD = 10.77; <i>t</i>[167] = 6.387; and <i>p</i> = 0.000). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> The PV obtained by MRI has proven to correlate with the PV obtained via auto-segmentation software as well as actual SPW, while also being more cost-effective and time-efficient. Therefore, demonstrating that MRI estimated the PV is an adequate method for use in clinical practice for therapeutic planning and patient follow-up.

Prostate volume measurement by transrectal ultrasound and computed tomography before and after permanent prostate brachytherapy

2004 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 767-776 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew C. Solhjem ◽  
Brian J. Davis ◽  
Thomas M. Pisansky ◽  
Torrence M. Wilson ◽  
Lance A. Mynderse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Prostate Volume ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Volume Measurement ◽  
Prostate Brachytherapy ◽  
Before And After

scholarly journals Prostate volume estimations using magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound compared to radical prostatectomy specimens

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas R. Paterson ◽  
Luke T. Lavallée ◽  
Laura N. Nguyen ◽  
Kelsey Witiuk ◽  
James Ross ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Prostate Volume ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Size Spectrum ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Specimen Volume ◽  
Volume Estimates

<p><strong>Introduction:</strong> We sought to evaluate the accuracy of prostate volume estimates in patients who received both a preoperative transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in relation to the referent pathological specimen post-radical prostatectomy.</p><p><strong>Methods:</strong> Patients receiving both TRUS and MRI prior to radical prostatectomy at one academic institution were retrospectively analyzed. TRUS and MRI volumes were estimated using the prolate ellipsoid formula. TRUS volumes were collected from sonography reports. MRI volumes were estimated by two blinded raters and the mean of the two was used for analyses. Pathological volume was calculated using a standard fluid displacement method.</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> Three hundred and eighteen (318) patients were included in the analysis. MRI was slightly more accurate than TRUS based on interclass correlation (0.83 vs. 0.74) and absolute risk bias (higher proportion of estimates within 5, 10, and 20 cc of pathological volume). For TRUS, 87 of 298 (29.2%) prostates without median lobes differed by &gt;10 cc of specimen volume and 22 of 298 (7.4%) differed by &gt;20 cc. For MRI, 68 of 298 (22.8%) prostates without median lobes differed by &gt;10 cc of specimen volume, while only 4 of 298 (1.3%) differed by &gt;20 cc.</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> MRI and TRUS prostate volume estimates are consistent with pathological volumes along the prostate size spectrum. MRI demonstrated better correlation with prostatectomy specimen volume in most patients and may be better suited in cases where TRUS and MRI estimates are disparate. Validation of these findings with prospective, standardized ultrasound techniques would be helpful.</p>

Comparison of prostate volume, shape, and contouring variability determined from preimplant magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images

Brachytherapy ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 284-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek Liu ◽  
Nawaid Usmani ◽  
Sunita Ghosh ◽  
Wafa Kamal ◽  
John Pedersen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Prostate Volume ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Ultrasound Images

scholarly journals Comparison of Prostate Volume and Shape Determined by Magnetic Resonance and Transrectal Ultrasound Imaging

Brachytherapy ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. S90
Author(s):  
Derek Liu ◽  
Nawaid Usmani ◽  
Wafa Kamal ◽  
John Pedersen ◽  
Nadeem Pervez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Ultrasound Imaging ◽  
Prostate Volume ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document