Marc Bienz1, Pierre-Alain Hueber1, Naif Al-Hathal1, Michael McCormack1, Naeem Bhojani1, Quoc-Dien Trinh2, Kevin C Zorn3. 1. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Montreal University Hospital Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 2. Division of Urologic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 3. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Montreal University Hospital Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Electronic address: zorn.chumurology@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report the accuracy of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) to measure prostate size before robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy using the prolate ellipsoid formula and its correlation to the weight of the postoperative prostate specimen, for different prostate size groups. METHODS: Preoperative prostate size estimated by TRUS and the weight of postoperative prostate specimens were collected from 440 men undergoing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Patients were grouped according to preoperative prostate size: <30, 30-60, 60-80, and ≥80 g. To evaluate accuracy, the mean absolute percentage of error was used. The mean percentage of error was used to indicate whether the estimation of TRUS had a tendency to overestimate or underestimate prostate size. The correlation between both measurements was analyzed for each size group. RESULTS: Accuracy of TRUS estimation was associated with increased prostate size. TRUS estimation was more accurate for larger prostates. The mean absolute percentage of error of each group was 38.64% (<30 g), 21.33% (30-60 g), 13.23% (60-80 g), and 14.96% (≥80 g). Correlation followed a similar size-dependent trend, with a stronger r coefficient for larger prostates: 0.174 (<30 g), 0.327 (30-60 g), 0.457 (60-80 g), and 0.839 (≥80 g). Interestingly, smaller prostates were underestimated, whereas larger glands (≥80 g) had a tendency to be overestimated by TRUS. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the accuracy of the prolate ellipsoid formula for TRUS varies according to prostate size. Although this formula is fairly accurate for assessing larger prostates, it shows some limitations for smaller prostates. This must be taken into account when evaluating treatment modalities such as transurethral incision of the prostate and brachytherapy.
OBJECTIVE: To report the accuracy of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) to measure prostate size before robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy using the prolate ellipsoid formula and its correlation to the weight of the postoperative prostate specimen, for different prostate size groups. METHODS: Preoperative prostate size estimated by TRUS and the weight of postoperative prostate specimens were collected from 440 men undergoing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Patients were grouped according to preoperative prostate size: <30, 30-60, 60-80, and ≥80 g. To evaluate accuracy, the mean absolute percentage of error was used. The mean percentage of error was used to indicate whether the estimation of TRUS had a tendency to overestimate or underestimate prostate size. The correlation between both measurements was analyzed for each size group. RESULTS: Accuracy of TRUS estimation was associated with increased prostate size. TRUS estimation was more accurate for larger prostates. The mean absolute percentage of error of each group was 38.64% (<30 g), 21.33% (30-60 g), 13.23% (60-80 g), and 14.96% (≥80 g). Correlation followed a similar size-dependent trend, with a stronger r coefficient for larger prostates: 0.174 (<30 g), 0.327 (30-60 g), 0.457 (60-80 g), and 0.839 (≥80 g). Interestingly, smaller prostates were underestimated, whereas larger glands (≥80 g) had a tendency to be overestimated by TRUS. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the accuracy of the prolate ellipsoid formula for TRUS varies according to prostate size. Although this formula is fairly accurate for assessing larger prostates, it shows some limitations for smaller prostates. This must be taken into account when evaluating treatment modalities such as transurethral incision of the prostate and brachytherapy.
Authors: Emma H Allott; Ilona Csizmadi; Lauren E Howard; Roberto L Muller; Daniel M Moreira; Gerald L Andriole; Claus G Roehrborn; Stephen J Freedland Journal: BJU Int Date: 2019-09-27 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Benjamin C Trumble; Jonathan Stieglitz; Daniel Eid Rodriguez; Edhitt Cortez Linares; Hillard S Kaplan; Michael D Gurven Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Sung Han Kim; Boram Park; Whi-An Kwon; Jae Young Joung; Ho Kyung Seo; Jinsoo Chung; Kang Hyun Lee Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2019-03-31 Impact factor: 3.411