OBJECTIVES: To compare prostate volume obtained by transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and endorectal MRI (eMRI) to assess the reliability of TRUS in determining prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data for 2,410 patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (CaP) and treated with radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) at the University of Pennsylvania Health System between 1991 and 2005 was reviewed. Of these patients, 756 had both a preoperative TRUS and eMRI of the prostate performed. Prostate size was estimated using the prolate ellipsoid formula (height × width × length × π/6); maximal height or antero-posterior (A-P) diameter was determined using a midsagittal view for TRUS and an axial view for eMRI. Pearson's correlation, linear regression, and paired t-test were performed to compare prostate volumes estimated via both imaging modalities. RESULTS: Average prostate size measured with TRUS and eMRI correlated significantly with one another (R = 0.801; P < 0.0001), demonstrating a strong linear relationship (y = 0.891x + 2.622, R(2) = 0.642). Comparison of PSA density also demonstrated a strong linear relationship (y = 0.811x + 0.053, R(2) = 0.765). Average prostate volume differed by 1.7 ml (TRUS relative to eMRI), which was statistically significant based on a paired t-test (P < 0.001). Upon stratification of patients into three groups based on average TRUS volume (≤ 30, >30-60, and >60 ml), significant correlation (0.318, 0.564, 0.650) and difference between volumes (-2.1, 4.0, 5.1 ml; P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001, P < 0.05 TRUS relative to eMRI) was maintained. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate volume estimations with TRUS and eMRI are highly correlated. It is therefore, reasonable to conclude that in the hands of an experienced sonographer, TRUS is not only an efficient and economical examination, but also an accurate and reproducible modality to estimate prostate size.
OBJECTIVES: To compare prostate volume obtained by transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and endorectal MRI (eMRI) to assess the reliability of TRUS in determining prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data for 2,410 patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (CaP) and treated with radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) at the University of Pennsylvania Health System between 1991 and 2005 was reviewed. Of these patients, 756 had both a preoperative TRUS and eMRI of the prostate performed. Prostate size was estimated using the prolate ellipsoid formula (height × width × length × π/6); maximal height or antero-posterior (A-P) diameter was determined using a midsagittal view for TRUS and an axial view for eMRI. Pearson's correlation, linear regression, and paired t-test were performed to compare prostate volumes estimated via both imaging modalities. RESULTS: Average prostate size measured with TRUS and eMRI correlated significantly with one another (R = 0.801; P < 0.0001), demonstrating a strong linear relationship (y = 0.891x + 2.622, R(2) = 0.642). Comparison of PSA density also demonstrated a strong linear relationship (y = 0.811x + 0.053, R(2) = 0.765). Average prostate volume differed by 1.7 ml (TRUS relative to eMRI), which was statistically significant based on a paired t-test (P < 0.001). Upon stratification of patients into three groups based on average TRUS volume (≤ 30, >30-60, and >60 ml), significant correlation (0.318, 0.564, 0.650) and difference between volumes (-2.1, 4.0, 5.1 ml; P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001, P < 0.05 TRUS relative to eMRI) was maintained. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate volume estimations with TRUS and eMRI are highly correlated. It is therefore, reasonable to conclude that in the hands of an experienced sonographer, TRUS is not only an efficient and economical examination, but also an accurate and reproducible modality to estimate prostate size.
Authors: Mrishta Brizmohun Appayya; Harbir S Sidhu; Nikolaos Dikaios; Edward W Johnston; Lucy Am Simmons; Alex Freeman; Alexander Ps Kirkham; Hashim U Ahmed; Shonit Punwani Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 3.039
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: Camila Lopes Vendrami; Robert J McCarthy; Argha Chatterjee; David Casalino; Edward M Schaeffer; William J Catalona; Frank H Miller Journal: Urology Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 2.649
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
Authors: Sammy E Elsamra; Nikhil Gupta; Haris Ahmed; David Leavitt; Jessica Kreshover; Louis Kavoussi; Lee Richstone Journal: Asian J Urol Date: 2015-04-16