scholarly journals Prostate Volume Measurement by TRUS Using Heights Obtained by Transaxial and Midsagittal Scanning: Comparison with Specimen Volume Following Radical Prostatectomy

2000 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sung Bin Park ◽  
Jae Kyun Kim ◽  
Sung Hoon Choi ◽  
Han Na Noh ◽  
Eun Kyung Ji ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Prostate Volume ◽  
Volume Measurement ◽  
Specimen Volume

scholarly journals 1014 Assessment of Prostate Gland Volume Estimations Using MRI And TRUS Compared to Radical Prostatectomy Specimens

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_6) ◽  
Author(s):  
S Yallappa ◽  
I A Aneke ◽  
M Amjad ◽  
A Clark ◽  
L Gommersall
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Prostate Volume ◽  
Prostate Gland ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Clinical Information ◽  
Volume Estimate ◽  
Cancer Group ◽  
Specimen Volume ◽  
Mri Scans

Abstract Introduction The prostate volume is an essential criterion to calculate prostate specific antigen density (PSAD). When selecting patients for active surveillance (AS), in newly diagnosed low risk prostate cancer group or continuing AS in previously diagnosed cancer prostate, PSAD plays a major role. Estimation of the volume using digital rectal exam or PSA are inaccurate. This study aims to conduct a retrospective review to evaluate the accuracy of prostatic volume estimates in patients who had TRUS and MRI scans, comparing the obtained volumes to the reference standard which is the actual volume of radical prostatectomy specimen. Method Data was collected retrospectively for all patients who had robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (RRP) at the Royal Stoke Hospital between October 2015 and October 2018. Clinical information of TRUS and MRI prostate volumes were extracted from PACS and prostate specimen volume was collected from the histopathology report of RRP specimen. Results Pathological specimen prostate volume showed a positive relationship between MRI and TRUS prostate volume with a correlation efficient of 0.71 for MRI vs RRP specimen volume and 0.81 for TRUS vs RRP specimen volume. Mean TRUS volume underestimated prostate volume by 7.33cc and mean MRI volume underestimated prostate volume by 0.02cc Conclusions Although the study showed positive correlation between measuring prostate volume using MRI and TRUS as compared to RRP specimens, MRI showed a greater accuracy as compared to TRUS. We conclude that using MRI prostate volume gives more precise prostate volume estimate aiding appropriate therapeutic planning of patients with prostate cancer.

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 Measured by Endorectal Coil MRI to Prostate Specimen Volume and Mass After Radical Prostatectomy

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 556-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yousef Mazaheri ◽  
Debra A. Goldman ◽  
Pier Luigi Di Paolo ◽  
Oguz Akin ◽  
Hedvig Hricak
Keyword(s):  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Prostate Volume ◽  
Endorectal Coil ◽  
Specimen Volume

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.

1029: Cancer to Total Prostate Volume Ratio Influences Patholgical Parameters and Biochemical Recurrence in Localized Prostate Cancer Treated by Radical Prostatectomy

2007 ◽  
Vol 177 (4S) ◽  
pp. 340-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong Gee Sim ◽  
Donatello Telesca ◽  
Stephen H. Culp ◽  
Paul H. Lange ◽  
William J. Ellis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Biochemical Recurrence ◽  
Prostate Volume ◽  
Volume Ratio ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer

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 Is Small Prostate Volume a Predictor of Gleason Score Upgrading after Radical Prostatectomy?

2013 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 902 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mun Su Chung ◽  
Seung Hwan Lee ◽  
Dong Hoon Lee ◽  
Byung Ha Chung
Keyword(s):  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Prostate Volume

scholarly journals Prostate Volume has Prognostic Value Only in Pathologic T2 Radical Prostatectomy Specimens

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 807 ◽  
Author(s):  
In-Chang Cho ◽  
Whi-An Kwon ◽  
Jeong Eun Kim ◽  
Jae Young Joung ◽  
Ho Kyung Seo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Prognostic Value ◽  
Prostate Volume

scholarly journals Clinical and pathological variables that predict changes in tumour grade after radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stavros Sfoungaristos ◽  
Petros Perimenis
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Prostate Volume ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Intraepithelial Neoplasia ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Psa Density ◽  
Group 2

Introduction: Preoperative Gleason score is crucial, in combination with other preoperative parameters, in selecting the appropriate treatment for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. The aim of the present study is to determine the clinical and pathological variables that can predict differences in Gleason score between biopsy and radical prostatectomy.Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 302 patients who had a radical prostatectomy between January 2005 and September 2010. The association between grade changes and preoperative Gleason score, age, prostate volume, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA density, number of biopsy cores, presence of prostatitis and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia was analyzed. We also conducted a secondary analysis of the factors that influence upgrading in patients with preoperative Gleason score ≤6 (group 1) and downgrading in patients with Gleason score ≤7 (group 2).Results: No difference in Gleason score was noted in 44.3% of patients, while a downgrade was noted in 13.7% and upgrade in 42.1%. About 2/3 of patients with a Gleason score of ≤6 upgraded after radical prostatectomy. PSA density (p = 0.008) and prostate volume (p = 0.032) were significantly correlated with upgrade. No significant predictors were found for patients with Gleason score ≤7 who downgraded postoperatively.Conclusion: Smaller prostate volume and higher values of PSA density are predictors for upgrade in patients with biopsy Gleason score ≤6 and this should be considered when deferred treatment modalities are planned.

scholarly journals Predicting the Gleason sum of a patient with a prostate biopsy core Gleason ≤7 and a prostate biopsy core Gleason ≥8

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 476
Author(s):  
Olivier P. Heimrath ◽  
Zuzana Kos ◽  
Eric C. Belanger ◽  
Ilias Cagiannos ◽  
Chris Morash ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Relative Risk ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Prostate Volume ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Ottawa Hospital ◽  
Biopsy Core ◽  
Risk Categories

Introduction: We review a subset of men who had discordant prostate biopsy sums and were treated with radical prostatectomy.Methods: Consecutive patients treated with radical prostatectomy at The Ottawa Hospital between 2000 and 2012 were reviewed. Those with at least 1 prostate biopsy core of Gleason sum ≥8 and at least 1 prostate biopsy core of Gleason sum ≤7 cancer were included.Results: Of the 764 radical prostatectomies, 661 (87%) were eligible for the study and 35 (5%) met inclusion criteria. Of these, only 16 (46%) had prostatectomy Gleason sum of ≥8. When the highest biopsy core was Gleason sum 8 (n = 24), only 7 (29%) had a prostatectomy Gleason sum ≥8. When the highest biopsy core was Gleason 9 (n = 11), 9 (82%) had a prostatectomy Gleason sum ≥8 (relative risk [RR] 2.8; p = 0.004). Patients with clinical T3 tumours were at higher risk of Gleason sum ≥8 compared to cT1 patients (RR 3.7; p = 0.008). Patient age (p = 0.89), preoperative prostate-specific antigen (p = 0.34), prostate volume (p = 0.86), number of biopsy cores (p = 0.18), and proportion of biopsy cores with cancer (p = 0.96) were not strongly associated with risk of prostatectomy Gleason sum ≥8.Conclusion: These data should be considered when assigning patients into prognostic risk categories based on prostate biopsy information. Further study to verify our findings using larger samples is warranted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document