OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the interobserver variability of transrectal ultrasound for prostate volume measurement according to the prostate volume and the level of observer experience. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Endorectal sonography was performed independently by two experienced observers in 101 patients and by one experienced and one less experienced observer in 110 patients; the prostate volume was then measured using the prolate ellipsoid formula. The volume difference between observers was analyzed according to the mean measured prostate volume determined by the observers and according to the level of observer experience. RESULTS: The volume difference was greater in prostates with a mean measured volume >or= 30 mL than in prostates with a mean measured volume < 30 mL (6.00 vs 1.51 mL in the experienced observers and 6.84 vs 3.99 mL in the experienced and less experienced observers) (p < 0.05). The frequency of volume differences > 5 mL was greater in prostates with a mean measured volume >or= 30 mL than in prostates with a mean measured volume < 30 mL (between the experienced observers, 18% vs 1%; between the experienced and less experienced observers, 54% vs 25%) (p < 0.01 in both comparisons). The volume difference was greater between the experienced and less experienced observers (5.00 mL) than between the experienced observers (2.96 mL) (p = 0.01). The frequency of volume difference > 5 mL was greater between the experienced and less experienced observers (35%) than between the experienced observers (7%) (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Prostate volume measurement by transrectal ultrasound may vary when patients have large prostates or observers have varying levels of experience.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the interobserver variability of transrectal ultrasound for prostate volume measurement according to the prostate volume and the level of observer experience. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Endorectal sonography was performed independently by two experienced observers in 101 patients and by one experienced and one less experienced observer in 110 patients; the prostate volume was then measured using the prolate ellipsoid formula. The volume difference between observers was analyzed according to the mean measured prostate volume determined by the observers and according to the level of observer experience. RESULTS: The volume difference was greater in prostates with a mean measured volume >or= 30 mL than in prostates with a mean measured volume < 30 mL (6.00 vs 1.51 mL in the experienced observers and 6.84 vs 3.99 mL in the experienced and less experienced observers) (p < 0.05). The frequency of volume differences > 5 mL was greater in prostates with a mean measured volume >or= 30 mL than in prostates with a mean measured volume < 30 mL (between the experienced observers, 18% vs 1%; between the experienced and less experienced observers, 54% vs 25%) (p < 0.01 in both comparisons). The volume difference was greater between the experienced and less experienced observers (5.00 mL) than between the experienced observers (2.96 mL) (p = 0.01). The frequency of volume difference > 5 mL was greater between the experienced and less experienced observers (35%) than between the experienced observers (7%) (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Prostate volume measurement by transrectal ultrasound may vary when patients have large prostates or observers have varying levels of experience.
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: Y Mazaheri; A A Afaq; S I Jung; D A Goldman; L Wang; H Aslan; M J Zelefsky; O Akin; H Hricak Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2014-12-29 Impact factor: 2.350
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
Authors: Ahmed M Harraz; Ahmed El-Assmy; Mohamed Tharwat; Ahmed M Elshal; Ahmed R El-Nahas; Tamer S Barakat; Mohamed M Elsaadany; Samer El-Halwagy; El Housseiny I Ibrahiem Journal: Arab J Urol Date: 2014-11-11
Authors: Ali Babaei Jandaghi; Maryam Shakiba; Hamidreza Nasseh; Yaser Korouji; Samaneh Esmaeili; Ali Akbar Khadem Maboudi; Ali Khorshidi Journal: Iran J Med Sci Date: 2015-01
Authors: Murat Osman; Haytham Shebel; Sandeep Sankineni; Marcelino L Bernardo; Dagane Daar; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Harsh K Agarwal Journal: Radiol Res Pract Date: 2014-10-13