Literature DB >> 17069912

Prostate volume determination: differential volume measurements comparing CT and TRUS.

Karl Mikael Kälkner1, Gregory Kubicek, Josef Nilsson, Marie Lundell, Seymour Levitt, Sten Nilsson.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the differences in prostate volume assessed by computerized tomography (CT), step-section transrectal ultrasound (TRUS-step), and TRUS with ellipsoid-formula volume calculation (TRUS-ellipsoid). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-one patients with localized prostate cancer treated with combined external conformal radiotherapy and high dose rate brachytherapy, who had prostate volumes evaluated using CT, TRUS-step and TRUS-ellipsoid according to our clinical routine for dose planning. The measurements were collected retrospectively based on actual dose-plans.
RESULTS: The prostate volume was on average 34 cc (range 18-60 cc) according to CT, 28 cc (range 12-57 cc) and 24 cc (range 13-44 cc) according to TRUS-step and TRUS-ellipsoid, respectively. The differences between the lengths measured were most pronounced with a mean length of 4.5 cm (range 3.0-6.0 cm) defined by CT as compared to 3.6 cm (range 3.0-5.0 cm) and 3.6 cm (range 2.8-5.0 cm) when defined by TRUS-step and TRUS-ellipsoid, respectively.
CONCLUSION: CT defined volumes are 30% larger than volumes defined with TRUS-step. This is probably due to uncertainty in defining the apex of the prostate and thereby the length of the prostate using CT. When defining target in radiotherapy, it is important to be aware of the differences in volumes depending on the technique used.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17069912     DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2006.10.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiother Oncol        ISSN: 0167-8140            Impact factor:   6.280


  8 in total

1.  Volumetric difference evaluation of registered three-dimensional pre-operative and post-operative CT dental data.

Authors:  T L Economopoulos; P A Asvestas; G K Matsopoulos; B Molnár; P Windisch
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2012-01-12       Impact factor: 2.419

2.  Correlation Analyses of Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Calculation of Prostate Volume in Colorectal Cancer Patients with Voiding Problems Who Cannot Have Transrectal Ultrasonography.

Authors:  Sung Han Kim; Boram Park; Whi-An Kwon; Jae Young Joung; Ho Kyung Seo; Jinsoo Chung; Kang Hyun Lee
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2019-03-31       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  The impact of prostate volume changes during external-beam irradiation in consequence of HDR brachytherapy in prostate cancer treatment.

Authors:  Markus Karl Alfred Herrmann; Tammo Gsänger; Arne Strauss; Tereza Kertesz; Hendrik A Wolff; Hans Christiansen; Hilke Vorwerk; Clemens Friedrich Hess; Andrea Hille
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2009-06-09       Impact factor: 3.621

4.  Urine Flow Dynamics Through Prostatic Urethra With Tubular Organ Modeling Using Endoscopic Imagery.

Authors:  Takuro Ishii; Yoichi Kambara; Tomonori Yamanishi; Yukio Naya; Tatsuo Igarashi
Journal:  IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med       Date:  2014-08-04       Impact factor: 3.316

Review 5.  ACR Appropriateness Criteria® external beam radiation therapy treatment planning for clinically localized prostate cancer, part I of II.

Authors:  Nicholas G Zaorsky; Timothy N Showalter; Gary A Ezzell; Paul L Nguyen; Dean G Assimos; Anthony V D'Amico; Alexander R Gottschalk; Gary S Gustafson; Sameer R Keole; Stanley L Liauw; Shane Lloyd; Patrick W McLaughlin; Benjamin Movsas; Bradley R Prestidge; Al V Taira; Neha Vapiwala; Brian J Davis
Journal:  Adv Radiat Oncol       Date:  2016-10-20

6.  Impact of poor glycemic control of type 2 diabetes mellitus on serum prostate-specific antigen concentrations in men.

Authors:  Hasan Anıl Atalay; Murat Akarsu; Lutfi Canat; Volkan Ülker; İlter Alkan; Unsal Ozkuvancı
Journal:  Prostate Int       Date:  2017-03-03

7.  Evaluation of canine prostate volume in calculated tomographic images - comparison of two assessment methods.

Authors:  Katharina Haverkamp; Lisa Katharina Harder; Nora Sophie Marita Kuhnt; Matthias Lüpke; Ingo Nolte; Patrick Wefstaedt
Journal:  BMC Vet Res       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 2.741

8.  Non-neural phenotype of spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy: results from a large cohort of Italian patients.

Authors:  Giorgia Querin; Cinzia Bertolin; Elisa Da Re; Marco Volpe; Gabriella Zara; Elena Pegoraro; Nicola Caretta; Carlo Foresta; Maria Silvano; Domenico Corrado; Massimo Iafrate; Lorenzo Angelini; Leonardo Sartori; Maria Pennuto; Alessandra Gaiani; Luca Bello; Claudio Semplicini; Davide Pareyson; Vincenzo Silani; Mario Ermani; Alberto Ferlin; Gianni Sorarù
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 10.154

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.