BACKGROUND: Prostate volume (PV) is a useful tool in risk stratification, diagnosis, and follow-up of numerous prostatic diseases including prostate cancer and benign prostatic hypertrophy. There is currently no accepted ideal PV measurement method. OBJECTIVE: This study compares multiple means of PV estimation, including digital rectal examination (DRE), transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and radical prostatectomy specimens to determine the best volume measurement style. METHODS: A retrospective, observational, single-site study with patients identified using an institutional database was performed. A total of 197 patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy were considered. Data collected included age, serum PSA at the time of the prostate biopsy, clinical T stage, Gleason score, and PVs for each of the following methods: DRE, TRUS, MRI, and surgical specimen weight (SPW) and volume. RESULTS: A paired t test was performed, which reported a statistically significant difference between PV measures (DRE, TRUS, MRI ellipsoid, MRI bullet, SP ellipsoid, and SP bullet) and the actual prostate weight. Lowest differences were reported for SP ellipsoid volume (M = -2.37; standard deviation [SD] = 10.227; t[167] = -3.011; and p = 0.003), MRI ellipsoid volume (M = -4.318; SD = 9.53; t[167] = -5.87; and p = 0.000), and MRI bullet volume (M = 5.31; SD = 10.77; t[167] = 6.387; and p = 0.000). CONCLUSION: The PV obtained by MRI has proven to correlate with the PV obtained via auto-segmentation software as well as actual SPW, while also being more cost-effective and time-efficient. Therefore, demonstrating that MRI estimated the PV is an adequate method for use in clinical practice for therapeutic planning and patient follow-up.
BACKGROUND: Prostate volume (PV) is a useful tool in risk stratification, diagnosis, and follow-up of numerous prostatic diseases including prostate cancer and benign prostatic hypertrophy. There is currently no accepted ideal PV measurement method. OBJECTIVE: This study compares multiple means of PV estimation, including digital rectal examination (DRE), transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and radical prostatectomy specimens to determine the best volume measurement style. METHODS: A retrospective, observational, single-site study with patients identified using an institutional database was performed. A total of 197 patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy were considered. Data collected included age, serum PSA at the time of the prostate biopsy, clinical T stage, Gleason score, and PVs for each of the following methods: DRE, TRUS, MRI, and surgical specimen weight (SPW) and volume. RESULTS: A paired t test was performed, which reported a statistically significant difference between PV measures (DRE, TRUS, MRI ellipsoid, MRI bullet, SP ellipsoid, and SP bullet) and the actual prostate weight. Lowest differences were reported for SP ellipsoid volume (M = -2.37; standard deviation [SD] = 10.227; t[167] = -3.011; and p = 0.003), MRI ellipsoid volume (M = -4.318; SD = 9.53; t[167] = -5.87; and p = 0.000), and MRI bullet volume (M = 5.31; SD = 10.77; t[167] = 6.387; and p = 0.000). CONCLUSION: The PV obtained by MRI has proven to correlate with the PV obtained via auto-segmentation software as well as actual SPW, while also being more cost-effective and time-efficient. Therefore, demonstrating that MRI estimated the PV is an adequate method for use in clinical practice for therapeutic planning and patient follow-up.
Authors: Matteo Ferro; Ottavio de Cobelli; Gennaro Musi; Francesco Del Giudice; Giuseppe Carrieri; Gian Maria Busetto; Ugo Giovanni Falagario; Alessandro Sciarra; Martina Maggi; Felice Crocetto; Biagio Barone; Vincenzo Francesco Caputo; Michele Marchioni; Giuseppe Lucarelli; Ciro Imbimbo; Francesco Alessandro Mistretta; Stefano Luzzago; Mihai Dorin Vartolomei; Luigi Cormio; Riccardo Autorino; Octavian Sabin Tătaru Journal: Ther Adv Urol Date: 2022-07-04
Authors: Vanessa F Schmidt; Mirjam Schirren; Maurice M Heimer; Philipp M Kazmierczak; Clemens C Cyran; Moritz Wildgruber; Max Seidensticker; Jens Ricke; Olga Solyanik Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-02-25