PURPOSE: The ability to estimate prostate weight is useful. Two commonly used methods for estimating prostate weight are digital rectal examination (DRE) and transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS). We evaluated the relative accuracy of these weight estimates by comparing them to prostate weight following radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1989 and 2001 more than 36,000 community men participated in a large prostate cancer screening study. Of these men 2,238 underwent RRP. In this subset we examined the correlation between documented preoperative DRE and TRUS estimates of prostate weight with actual gland weight. RESULTS: DRE estimates of prostate weight by multiple examiners correlated poorly with RRP specimen weight (r = 0.2743). However, TRUS estimates correlated moderately well (r = 0.6493). TRUS provided more accurate estimates of prostate weight for smaller glands, although it generally underestimated gland weight compared to the weight of the surgical specimen. CONCLUSIONS: In a large, community based prostate cancer screening study prostate weight estimated by DRE was shown to correlate poorly with actual prostate weight. Compared with DRE, TRUS provides a better estimate of prostate weight. In addition, TRUS measurements were more accurate in smaller prostate glands.
PURPOSE: The ability to estimate prostate weight is useful. Two commonly used methods for estimating prostate weight are digital rectal examination (DRE) and transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS). We evaluated the relative accuracy of these weight estimates by comparing them to prostate weight following radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1989 and 2001 more than 36,000 community men participated in a large prostate cancer screening study. Of these men 2,238 underwent RRP. In this subset we examined the correlation between documented preoperative DRE and TRUS estimates of prostate weight with actual gland weight. RESULTS: DRE estimates of prostate weight by multiple examiners correlated poorly with RRP specimen weight (r = 0.2743). However, TRUS estimates correlated moderately well (r = 0.6493). TRUS provided more accurate estimates of prostate weight for smaller glands, although it generally underestimated gland weight compared to the weight of the surgical specimen. CONCLUSIONS: In a large, community based prostate cancer screening study prostate weight estimated by DRE was shown to correlate poorly with actual prostate weight. Compared with DRE, TRUS provides a better estimate of prostate weight. In addition, TRUS measurements were more accurate in smaller prostate glands.
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Sophie M Bruinsma; Joseph Nicholson; Alberto Briganti; Tom Pickles; Yoshiyuki Kakehi; Sigrid V Carlsson; Monique J Roobol Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-10-31 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Nicholas R Paterson; Luke T Lavallée; Laura N Nguyen; Kelsey Witiuk; James Ross; Ranjeeta Mallick; Wael Shabana; Blair MacDonald; Nicola Scheida; Dean Fergusson; Franco Momoli; Sonya Cnossen; Christopher Morash; Ilias Cagiannos; Rodney H Breau Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Benjamin C Trumble; Jonathan Stieglitz; Daniel Eid Rodriguez; Edhitt Cortez Linares; Hillard S Kaplan; Michael D Gurven Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Matthew Truong; Jon A Slezak; Chee Paul Lin; Viacheslav Iremashvili; Martins Sado; Aria A Razmaria; Glen Leverson; Mark S Soloway; Scott E Eggener; E Jason Abel; Tracy M Downs; David F Jarrard Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: John C Mavropoulos; Alan W Partin; Christopher L Amling; Martha K Terris; Christopher J Kane; William J Aronson; Joseph C Presti; Leslie A Mangold; Stephen J Freedland Journal: Urology Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Peter K F Chiu; Monique J Roobol; Jeremy Y Teoh; Wai-Man Lee; Siu-Ying Yip; See-Ming Hou; Chris H Bangma; Chi-Fai Ng Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2016-06-27 Impact factor: 2.370