Literature DB >> 20653780

The weight of the prostate gland is an excellent surrogate for gland volume.

Murali Varma1, John M Morgan.   

Abstract

AIMS: Prostate gland volume is generally assessed by transrectal ultrasound examination or magnetic resonance imaging at the time of prostatic biopsy or pre-brachytherapy planning. The volume is most commonly measured using the formula, prostate volume = height x width x length x pi/6, which is derived considering the gland as ellipsoid. There are conflicting data regarding the accuracy of this method, with most studies comparing this calculated volume with that measured radiologically using planimetry with summation of sequential area measurements. The aim was to determine the relationship between prostate gland volume and weight. METHODS AND
RESULTS: The accuracy of prostate gland volume calculated from three-dimensional measurements of the gland in 20 radical prostatectomy specimens relative to the true gland volume determined using water displacement was prospectively evaluated. Since volume measurement by water displacement is not practical in routine practice, the relationship between prostate weight and volume was also evaluated. Our findings indicate that the calculated gland volume consistently underestimates the true volume. The volume of the prostate gland (in cm(3)) very closely correlates with its weight (in g).
CONCLUSIONS: The weight of the prostate gland (without the seminal vesicles) is an excellent surrogate for prostate volume. The prostate gland in radical prostatectomy specimens should be weighed after transecting the seminal vesicles at the base.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20653780     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2010.03591.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Histopathology        ISSN: 0309-0167            Impact factor:   5.087


  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.  Prostate volume estimations using magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound compared to radical prostatectomy specimens.

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

3.  Relationship between serum prostate-specific antigen and age in cadavers.

Authors:  Hajime Tsuboi; Daisuke Miyamori; Noboru Ishikawa; Hiroaki Ichioka; Hiroshi Ikegaya
Journal:  SAGE Open Med       Date:  2020-09-16

4.  3T multiparametric MR imaging, PIRADSv2-based detection of index prostate cancer lesions in the transition zone and the peripheral zone using whole mount histopathology as reference standard.

Authors:  Nazanin Hajarol Asvadi; Sohrab Afshari Mirak; Amirhossein Mohammadian Bajgiran; Pooria Khoshnoodi; Pornphan Wibulpolprasert; Daniel Margolis; Anthony Sisk; Robert E Reiter; Steven S Raman
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2018-11

5.  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

6.  Pathological Outcome following Radical Prostatectomy in Men with Prostate Specific Antigen Greater than 10 ng/ml and Histologically Favorable Risk Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Jiwoong Yu; Young Suk Kwon; Sinae Kim; Christopher Sejong Han; Nicholas Farber; Jongmyung Kim; Seok Soo Byun; Wun-Jae Kim; Seong Soo Jeon; Isaac Yi Kim
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Inter-imaging accuracy of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and transrectal ultrasound in measuring prostate volume compared to the anatomic prostatic weight.

Authors:  Vaishnavi Narayanamurthy; Kirtishri Mishra; Amr Mahran; Laura Bukavina; Lee Ponsky; Ehud Gnessin
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2020-01-01

8.  Relative Contribution of Sampling and Grading to the Quality of Prostate Biopsy: Results from a Single High-volume Institution.

Authors:  Carlo Andrea Bravi; Emily Vertosick; Amy Tin; Simone Scuderi; Giuseppe Fallara; Giuseppe Rosiello; Elio Mazzone; Marco Bandini; Giorgio Gandaglia; Nicola Fossati; Massimo Freschi; Rodolfo Montironi; Alberto Briganti; Francesco Montorsi; Andrew Vickers
Journal:  Eur Urol Oncol       Date:  2018-11-24

9.  Higher prostate weight is inversely associated with Gleason score upgrading in radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Leonardo Oliveira Reis; Emerson Luis Zani; Leandro L L Freitas; Fernandes Denardi; Athanase Billis
Journal:  Adv Urol       Date:  2013-10-31

10.  Predicting clinically significant prostate cancer based on pre-operative patient profile and serum biomarkers.

Authors:  Izak Faiena; Sinae Kim; Nicholas Farber; Young Suk Kwon; Brian Shinder; Neal Patel; Amirali H Salmasi; Thomas Jang; Eric A Singer; Wun-Jae Kim; Isaac Y Kim
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-09-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.