Literature DB >> 19155408

Interobserver variability of transrectal ultrasound for prostate volume measurement according to volume and observer experience.

Young Jun Choi1, Jeong Kon Kim, Hyun Jin Kim, Kyoung-Sik Cho.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19155408     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.3617

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  11 in total

1.  Automated computer-derived prostate volumes from MR imaging data: comparison with radiologist-derived MR imaging and pathologic specimen volumes.

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

2.  Is Body Mass Index the Best Adiposity Measure for Prostate Cancer Risk? Results From a Veterans Affairs Biopsy Cohort.

Authors:  Lourdes Guerrios-Rivera; Lauren Howard; Jennifer Frank; Amanda De Hoedt; Devon Beverly; Delores J Grant; Cathrine Hoyo; Stephen J Freedland
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2017-04-10       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  Diagnostic value of MRI-based PSA density in predicting transperineal sector-guided prostate biopsy outcomes.

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

4.  Volume and landmark analysis: comparison of MRI measurements obtained with an endorectal coil and with a phased-array coil.

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

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.  Prostate volumes derived from MRI and volume-adjusted serum prostate-specific antigen: correlation with Gleason score of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ibrahim Karademir; Dinggang Shen; Yahui Peng; Shu Liao; Yulei Jiang; Ambereen Yousuf; Gregory Karczmar; Steffen Sammet; Shiyang Wang; Milica Medved; Tatjana Antic; Scott Eggener; Aytekin Oto
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Predicting the resected tissue weight from a digital rectal examination and total prostate specific antigen level before transurethral resection of the prostate.

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

8.  Application of bland-altman method in comparing transrectal and transabdominal ultrasonography for estimating prostate volume.

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

9.  Whole prostate volume and shape changes with the use of an inflatable and flexible endorectal coil.

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

10.  Correlations of Metabolic Components with Prostate Volume in Middle-Aged Men Receiving Health Check-Up.

Authors:  Teng-Kai Yang; Peter Woo; Hung-Ju Yang; Hong-Chiang Chang; Ju-Ton Hsieh; Kuo-How Huang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-05       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.