Jae Seok Lee1, Byung Ha Chung. 1. Department of Urology, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are relatively few studies that compare the use of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to estimate the prostate volume. In this study, we compared the prostate volumes measured with MRI and TRUS with a surgical specimen volume. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-three patients underwent TRUS examination of the prostate prior to radical prostatectomy. All specimens were weighed and measured when freshly excised. The corresponding volume measurements calculated using TRUS and MRI were compared retrospectively with the measured volumes of freshly excised prostate. RESULTS: The volume measured with TRUS and MRI was linearly related to the radical prostatectomy volume. The estimated increase in the prostate volumes measured with TRUS and MRI per specimen volume was 0.9508 and 0.9331 by regression analysis, respectively. If the prostate volumes were <35 cm(3), the prostate volumes measured with MRI overestimated the specimen volumes. If the prostate volumes were >35 cm(3), the prostate volumes measured with MRI underestimated the specimen volumes. The classic ellipsoid formula was adequate for determining the prostate volume. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, MRI and TRUS gave different volumes. MRI is more accurate than TRUS for determining the prostate volume. However, because TRUS is inexpensive, noninvasive, and almost as accurate as MRI, it should be the preferred method for measuring the prostate volume.
INTRODUCTION: There are relatively few studies that compare the use of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to estimate the prostate volume. In this study, we compared the prostate volumes measured with MRI and TRUS with a surgical specimen volume. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-three patients underwent TRUS examination of the prostate prior to radical prostatectomy. All specimens were weighed and measured when freshly excised. The corresponding volume measurements calculated using TRUS and MRI were compared retrospectively with the measured volumes of freshly excised prostate. RESULTS: The volume measured with TRUS and MRI was linearly related to the radical prostatectomy volume. The estimated increase in the prostate volumes measured with TRUS and MRI per specimen volume was 0.9508 and 0.9331 by regression analysis, respectively. If the prostate volumes were <35 cm(3), the prostate volumes measured with MRI overestimated the specimen volumes. If the prostate volumes were >35 cm(3), the prostate volumes measured with MRI underestimated the specimen volumes. The classic ellipsoid formula was adequate for determining the prostate volume. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, MRI and TRUS gave different volumes. MRI is more accurate than TRUS for determining the prostate volume. However, because TRUS is inexpensive, noninvasive, and almost as accurate as MRI, it should be the preferred method for measuring the prostate volume.
Authors: Julie C Bulman; Robert Toth; Amish D Patel; B Nicolas Bloch; Colm J McMahon; Long Ngo; Anant Madabhushi; Neil M Rofsky Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Findlay MacAskill; Su-Min Lee; David Eldred-Evans; Wahyu Wulaningsih; Rick Popert; Konrad Wolfe; Mieke Van Hemelrijck; Giles Rottenberg; Sidath H Liyanage; Peter Acher Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2017-05-05 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Xiaofeng Yang; Peter Rossi; Tomi Ogunleye; David M Marcus; Ashesh B Jani; Hui Mao; Walter J Curran; Tian Liu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 4.071
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