Literature DB >> 11435838

Interexaminer reliability of transrectal ultrasound for estimating prostate volume.

S Sech1, J Montoya, C J Girman, T Rhodes, C G Roehrborn.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We investigated the interexaminer reliability of transrectal ultrasound measurement of total prostate and transition zone volume among 3 examiners with various levels of experience.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 121 patients 39 to 82 years old (average plus or minus standard deviation 60.7 +/- 10.3) from a single urology clinic volunteered to participate. Patients with prostate cancer, previous prostate surgery or recent invasive prostatic examination were excluded from study. Each individual was examined independently by each of 3 examiners with various levels of experience, including an attending urologist, a PGY-2 resident in the second year of general surgery before urology training and a PGY-4 resident in the second year of urology training. Transrectal ultrasound was performed in each case by each examiner in pre-specified random order.
RESULTS: Mean total prostate and transition zone volume was 35.9 +/- 27.2 and 15.6 +/- 18.8 ml., respectively. Interexaminer agreement or reliability of the ultrasound measurements was high for total prostate and transition zone volume (intraclass correlation 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95 to 0.97 and 0.93, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.95, respectively). For individual prostatic dimensions reliability estimates were 0.78 to 0.86, while for transition zone dimensions reliability was 0.85 to 0.90. Total prostate volume reliability was higher for prostate volume greater than 40 ml. versus smaller prostates (intraclass correlation 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.97 versus 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.84). Mean differences in transrectal ultrasound measurements by different examiners were highest for the resident with least experience.
CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of transrectal ultrasound measured total prostate and transition zone volume is high for examiners with different levels of experience at this institution. Reliability in patients without prostate cancer appears to be better for larger volume prostates and for examiners with more experience.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11435838

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  11 in total

1.  Prostate mechanical imaging: 3-D image composition and feature calculations.

Authors:  Vladimir Egorov; Suren Ayrapetyan; Armen P Sarvazyan
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 10.048

2.  [Parameters to improve the specificity of the prostate-specific antigen. Early detection of prostate cancer].

Authors:  C Börgermann; S Kliner; A Swoboda; H-J Luboldt; H Rübben
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 0.639

3.  Additional value of PCA3 density to predict initial prostate biopsy outcome.

Authors:  A Ruffion; P Perrin; M Devonec; D Champetier; M Decaussin; P Paparel; V Vlaeminck-Guillem
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-02-06       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  PSA density lower cutoff value as a tool to exclude pathologic upstaging in initially diagnosed unilateral prostate cancer: impact on hemiablative focal therapy.

Authors:  Thomas Hofner; Jesco Pfitzenmaier; Adel Alrabadi; Sascha Pahernik; Boris Hadaschik; Nina Wagener; Nenad Djakovic; Axel Haferkamp; Markus Hohenfellner
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2010-12-31       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis of Discrimination of the Four Kallikrein Panel Associated With the Inclusion of Prostate Volume.

Authors:  Emily A Vertosick; Stephen Zappala; Sanoj Punnen; Jonas Hugosson; Stephen A Boorjian; Alexander Haese; Peter Carroll; Matthew Cooperberg; Anders Bjartell; Hans Lilja; Andrew J Vickers
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2021-08-24       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  Relationship between age and prostate size.

Authors:  Shi-Jun Zhang; Hai-Ning Qian; Yan Zhao; Kai Sun; Hui-Qing Wang; Guo-Qing Liang; Feng-Hua Li; Zheng Li
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2012-12-10       Impact factor: 3.285

7.  Predictors of prostate volume reduction following neoadjuvant cytoreductive androgen suppression.

Authors:  Krishan R Jethwa; Keith M Furutani; Lance A Mynderse; Torrence M Wilson; Richard Choo; Bernard F King; Eric Bergstralh; Brian J Davis
Journal:  J Contemp Brachytherapy       Date:  2016-11-04

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

Authors:  Tatiana Martins; Thais Caldara Mussi; Ronaldo Hueb Baroni
Journal:  Einstein (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2020-01-31

9.  Correlations between the various methods of estimating prostate volume: transabdominal, transrectal, and three-dimensional US.

Authors:  Sun Ho Kim; Seung Hyup Kim
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2008 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.500

10.  Measurement of Prostate Volume with MRI (A Guide for the Perplexed): Biproximate Method with Analysis of Precision and Accuracy.

Authors:  Neil F Wasserman; Eric Niendorf; Benjamin Spilseth
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-01-17       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.