Literature DB >> 31905124

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

Vaishnavi Narayanamurthy1,2, Kirtishri Mishra1,2, Amr Mahran2, Laura Bukavina1,2, Lee Ponsky1,2, Ehud Gnessin1,2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared to the reference standard of the post-surgical anatomic prostatic weight (APW).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 349 patients from two institutions were included. The CT and MRI dimensions, and TRUS-reported prostate volumes (PV) were obtained. The prolate ellipsoid formula was used to calculate PV. Cross-sectional measurements were evaluated and compared to the reported post-surgical pathology measurements and calculated pathology volume (path PV). A basic statistical analysis was performed using the Pearson correlation, Bland-Altman analysis, and Passing-Bablok regression.
RESULTS: A total of 198 patients were included in the MRI group, 118 in the CT group, 295 in the TRUS group, and 51 in the all-inclusive common cohort. The MRI PV demonstrated a good to excellent correlation with the APW (r=0.79). The CT PV demonstrated a good correlation with APW (r=0.78). The TRUS PV showed a correlation with APW (r=0.67). The correlations identified in each individual group held true in the common cohort as well. The path PV showed an excellent correlation with APW (r=0.87), followed by MRI PV (r=0.81), then CT PV (r=0.73), and lastly TRUS PV (r=0.71).
CONCLUSION: MRI and CT are equally effective in assessing the PV, and they can be readily utilized to guide the benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) management without repeating in-office TRUS. This is not only cost-effective, but also eliminates patient anxiety and discomfort.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 31905124      PMCID: PMC6944424          DOI: 10.5152/tud.2019.19148

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Turk J Urol        ISSN: 2149-3235


  25 in total

1.  Measurement of PSA density by 3 imaging modalities and its correlation with the PSA density of radical prostatectomy specimen.

Authors:  Ioannis Varkarakis; Adam Zarkadoulias; Andreas Bourdoumis; Eleutherios Chatzidarellis; Nikolaos Antoniou; Charalambos Deliveliotis
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2011-12-22       Impact factor: 3.498

2.  Determination of prostate volume by transrectal ultrasound.

Authors:  M K Terris; T A Stamey
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Determination of prostate volume with transrectal US for cancer screening. Part II. Accuracy of in vitro and in vivo techniques.

Authors:  P J Littrup; C R Williams; T K Egglin; R A Kane
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1991-04       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  New technique for prostate volume assessment.

Authors:  Mohamad Habes; Jeanette Bahr; Thilo Schiller; Jens-Peter Kühn; Laura Hoppe; Martin Burchardt; Wolfgang Hoffmann
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-12-05       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  What is the best radiological method to predict the actual weight of the prostate?

Authors:  Metin Kiliç; Ahmet Tunç Ozdemir; Serkan Altinova; Ali Fuat Atmaca; Abdullah Erdem Canda; Mevlana Derya Balbay
Journal:  Turk J Med Sci       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 0.973

6.  The economics of benign prostatic hyperplasia and lower urinary tract symptoms in the United States.

Authors:  David A Taub; John T Wei
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.092

7.  Determination of Prostate Volume: A Comparison of Contemporary Methods.

Authors:  Adam Bezinque; Andrew Moriarity; Crystal Farrell; Henry Peabody; Sabrina L Noyes; Brian R Lane
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-03-30       Impact factor: 3.173

8.  The importance of measuring the prostatic transition zone: an anatomical and radiological study.

Authors:  A R Zlotta; B Djavan; M Damoun; T Roumeguere; M Petein; K Entezari; M Marberger; C C Schulman
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 5.588

9.  Comparison of prostate volume measured by transrectal ultrasonography and MRI with the actual prostate volume measured after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Chang Wook Jeong; Hyoung Keun Park; Sung Kyu Hong; Seok-Soo Byun; Hak Jong Lee; Sang Eun Lee
Journal:  Urol Int       Date:  2008-08-29       Impact factor: 2.089

Review 10.  How Accurately Can Prostate Gland Imaging Measure the Prostate Gland Volume? Results of a Systematic Review.

Authors:  David R H Christie; Christopher F Sharpley
Journal:  Prostate Cancer       Date:  2019-03-03
View more
  2 in total

1.  Reliability and validity of assessment methods available in primary care for bladder outlet obstruction and benign prostatic obstruction in men with lower urinary tract symptoms: a systematic review.

Authors:  Tom Vredeveld; Esther van Benten; Rikie E P M Beekmans; M Patrick Koops; Johannes C F Ket; Jurgen Mollema; Stephan P J Ramaekers; Jan J M Pool; Michel W Coppieters; Annelies L Pool-Goudzwaard
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-04-29       Impact factor: 3.006

Review 2.  Diagnostic Accuracy of Predictive Models in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Mohammad Saatchi; Fatemeh Khatami; Rahil Mashhadi; Akram Mirzaei; Leila Zareian; Zeinab Ahadi; Seyed Mohammad Kazem Aghamir
Journal:  Prostate Cancer       Date:  2022-06-08
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.