INTRODUCTION: We sought to evaluate the accuracy of prostate volume estimates in patients who received both a preoperative transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in relation to the referent pathological specimen post-radical prostatectomy. METHODS: Patients receiving both TRUS and MRI prior to radical prostatectomy at one academic institution were retrospectively analyzed. TRUS and MRI volumes were estimated using the prolate ellipsoid formula. TRUS volumes were collected from sonography reports. MRI volumes were estimated by two blinded raters and the mean of the two was used for analyses. Pathological volume was calculated using a standard fluid displacement method. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighteen (318) patients were included in the analysis. MRI was slightly more accurate than TRUS based on interclass correlation (0.83 vs. 0.74) and absolute risk bias (higher proportion of estimates within 5, 10, and 20 cc of pathological volume). For TRUS, 87 of 298 (29.2%) prostates without median lobes differed by >10 cc of specimen volume and 22 of 298 (7.4%) differed by >20 cc. For MRI, 68 of 298 (22.8%) prostates without median lobes differed by >10 cc of specimen volume, while only 4 of 298 (1.3%) differed by >20 cc. CONCLUSIONS: MRI and TRUS prostate volume estimates are consistent with pathological volumes along the prostate size spectrum. MRI demonstrated better correlation with prostatectomy specimen volume in most patients and may be better suited in cases where TRUS and MRI estimates are disparate. Validation of these findings with prospective, standardized ultrasound techniques would be helpful.
INTRODUCTION: We sought to evaluate the accuracy of prostate volume estimates in patients who received both a preoperative transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in relation to the referent pathological specimen post-radical prostatectomy. METHODS:Patients receiving both TRUS and MRI prior to radical prostatectomy at one academic institution were retrospectively analyzed. TRUS and MRI volumes were estimated using the prolate ellipsoid formula. TRUS volumes were collected from sonography reports. MRI volumes were estimated by two blinded raters and the mean of the two was used for analyses. Pathological volume was calculated using a standard fluid displacement method. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighteen (318) patients were included in the analysis. MRI was slightly more accurate than TRUS based on interclass correlation (0.83 vs. 0.74) and absolute risk bias (higher proportion of estimates within 5, 10, and 20 cc of pathological volume). For TRUS, 87 of 298 (29.2%) prostates without median lobes differed by >10 cc of specimen volume and 22 of 298 (7.4%) differed by >20 cc. For MRI, 68 of 298 (22.8%) prostates without median lobes differed by >10 cc of specimen volume, while only 4 of 298 (1.3%) differed by >20 cc. CONCLUSIONS: MRI and TRUS prostate volume estimates are consistent with pathological volumes along the prostate size spectrum. MRI demonstrated better correlation with prostatectomy specimen volume in most patients and may be better suited in cases where TRUS and MRI estimates are disparate. Validation of these findings with prospective, standardized ultrasound techniques would be helpful.
Authors: Brian Garvey; Barış Türkbey; Hong Truong; Marcelino Bernardo; Senthil Periaswamy; Peter L Choyke Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2014 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.630
Authors: Hyeli Park; Ja Young Kim; Bo Mi Lee; Sei Kyung Chang; Seung Young Ko; Sung Jun Kim; Dong Soo Park; Hyun Soo Shin Journal: Radiat Oncol J Date: 2011-09-30
Authors: Trevor J Royce; Panayiotis Mavroidis; Kyle Wang; Aaron D Falchook; Nathan C Sheets; Donald B Fuller; Sean P Collins; Issam El Naqa; Daniel Y Song; George X Ding; Alan E Nahum; Andrew Jackson; Jimm Grimm; Ellen Yorke; Ronald C Chen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-09-06 Impact factor: 8.013