Comparison of prostate volume measured by transrectal ultrasonography and mri with the actual prostate volume measured after radical prostatectomy

Chang Wook Jeong, Hyoung Keun Park, Sung Kyu Hong, Seok-Soo Byun, Hak Jong Lee, Sang Eun Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

42 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aim: To compare the prostate volume, as measured by transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) and by MRI, with that of the actual prostate volume measured after a radical prostatectomy (RRP). Materials and Methods: This prospective study included 21 patients who had undergone RRP. TRUS prostate volumes were calculated using the prolate ellipsoid volume formula, with the anteroposterior diameter measured from axial (TRUS-V1) and mid-sagittal images (TRUS-V2). Two prolate ellipsoid volumes (MRI-EV1 and MRI-EV2) were calculated from the MRI using the same method, and planimetric volume (MRI-PV). The actual prostate volume (Actual-V) was measured in a measuring jug within 1 h after RRP. Results: Mean of Actual-V was 40.3ml (21.0-82.0). In paired sample tests, the correlation coefficients (R) for all methods were over 0.8. In a Student's t test (paired), MRI-PV (p = 0.620), MRI-EV2 (p = 0.703) and TRUS-V1 (p = 0.099) showed no significant differences compared to the Actual-V. The linear regression models of these three methods were y = 1.025x - 0.268, y = 0.946x + 2.979 and y = 1.046x + 0.381, respectively. Conclusions: Between two TRUS volumes, TRUS-V1 was shown to be superior to TRUS-V2. In MRI, MRI-EV2 was more accurate than MRI-EV1. However, MRI-PV was the most accurate method. TRUS-V1 and MRI-EV2 could be used instead of MRI-PV in general clinical settings.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)179-185
Number of pages7
JournalUrologia Internationalis
Volume81
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Aug 2008

Fingerprint

Prostatectomy
Prostate
Ultrasonography
Phosmet
Linear Models
Prospective Studies
Students

Keywords

  • Magnetic resonance imaging
  • Prostate
  • Radical prostatectomy
  • Ultrasonography

Cite this

@article{a89f0958ce0b404d83d68670b5bbb9b5,
title = "Comparison of prostate volume measured by transrectal ultrasonography and mri with the actual prostate volume measured after radical prostatectomy",
abstract = "Aim: To compare the prostate volume, as measured by transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) and by MRI, with that of the actual prostate volume measured after a radical prostatectomy (RRP). Materials and Methods: This prospective study included 21 patients who had undergone RRP. TRUS prostate volumes were calculated using the prolate ellipsoid volume formula, with the anteroposterior diameter measured from axial (TRUS-V1) and mid-sagittal images (TRUS-V2). Two prolate ellipsoid volumes (MRI-EV1 and MRI-EV2) were calculated from the MRI using the same method, and planimetric volume (MRI-PV). The actual prostate volume (Actual-V) was measured in a measuring jug within 1 h after RRP. Results: Mean of Actual-V was 40.3ml (21.0-82.0). In paired sample tests, the correlation coefficients (R) for all methods were over 0.8. In a Student's t test (paired), MRI-PV (p = 0.620), MRI-EV2 (p = 0.703) and TRUS-V1 (p = 0.099) showed no significant differences compared to the Actual-V. The linear regression models of these three methods were y = 1.025x - 0.268, y = 0.946x + 2.979 and y = 1.046x + 0.381, respectively. Conclusions: Between two TRUS volumes, TRUS-V1 was shown to be superior to TRUS-V2. In MRI, MRI-EV2 was more accurate than MRI-EV1. However, MRI-PV was the most accurate method. TRUS-V1 and MRI-EV2 could be used instead of MRI-PV in general clinical settings.",
keywords = "Magnetic resonance imaging, Prostate, Radical prostatectomy, Ultrasonography",
author = "Jeong, {Chang Wook} and Park, {Hyoung Keun} and Hong, {Sung Kyu} and Seok-Soo Byun and Lee, {Hak Jong} and Lee, {Sang Eun}",
year = "2008",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1159/000144057",
language = "English",
volume = "81",
pages = "179--185",
journal = "Urologia Internationalis",
issn = "0042-1138",
publisher = "S. Karger AG",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of prostate volume measured by transrectal ultrasonography and mri with the actual prostate volume measured after radical prostatectomy

AU - Jeong, Chang Wook

AU - Park, Hyoung Keun

AU - Hong, Sung Kyu

AU - Byun, Seok-Soo

AU - Lee, Hak Jong

AU - Lee, Sang Eun

PY - 2008/8/1

Y1 - 2008/8/1

N2 - Aim: To compare the prostate volume, as measured by transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) and by MRI, with that of the actual prostate volume measured after a radical prostatectomy (RRP). Materials and Methods: This prospective study included 21 patients who had undergone RRP. TRUS prostate volumes were calculated using the prolate ellipsoid volume formula, with the anteroposterior diameter measured from axial (TRUS-V1) and mid-sagittal images (TRUS-V2). Two prolate ellipsoid volumes (MRI-EV1 and MRI-EV2) were calculated from the MRI using the same method, and planimetric volume (MRI-PV). The actual prostate volume (Actual-V) was measured in a measuring jug within 1 h after RRP. Results: Mean of Actual-V was 40.3ml (21.0-82.0). In paired sample tests, the correlation coefficients (R) for all methods were over 0.8. In a Student's t test (paired), MRI-PV (p = 0.620), MRI-EV2 (p = 0.703) and TRUS-V1 (p = 0.099) showed no significant differences compared to the Actual-V. The linear regression models of these three methods were y = 1.025x - 0.268, y = 0.946x + 2.979 and y = 1.046x + 0.381, respectively. Conclusions: Between two TRUS volumes, TRUS-V1 was shown to be superior to TRUS-V2. In MRI, MRI-EV2 was more accurate than MRI-EV1. However, MRI-PV was the most accurate method. TRUS-V1 and MRI-EV2 could be used instead of MRI-PV in general clinical settings.

AB - Aim: To compare the prostate volume, as measured by transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) and by MRI, with that of the actual prostate volume measured after a radical prostatectomy (RRP). Materials and Methods: This prospective study included 21 patients who had undergone RRP. TRUS prostate volumes were calculated using the prolate ellipsoid volume formula, with the anteroposterior diameter measured from axial (TRUS-V1) and mid-sagittal images (TRUS-V2). Two prolate ellipsoid volumes (MRI-EV1 and MRI-EV2) were calculated from the MRI using the same method, and planimetric volume (MRI-PV). The actual prostate volume (Actual-V) was measured in a measuring jug within 1 h after RRP. Results: Mean of Actual-V was 40.3ml (21.0-82.0). In paired sample tests, the correlation coefficients (R) for all methods were over 0.8. In a Student's t test (paired), MRI-PV (p = 0.620), MRI-EV2 (p = 0.703) and TRUS-V1 (p = 0.099) showed no significant differences compared to the Actual-V. The linear regression models of these three methods were y = 1.025x - 0.268, y = 0.946x + 2.979 and y = 1.046x + 0.381, respectively. Conclusions: Between two TRUS volumes, TRUS-V1 was shown to be superior to TRUS-V2. In MRI, MRI-EV2 was more accurate than MRI-EV1. However, MRI-PV was the most accurate method. TRUS-V1 and MRI-EV2 could be used instead of MRI-PV in general clinical settings.

KW - Magnetic resonance imaging

KW - Prostate

KW - Radical prostatectomy

KW - Ultrasonography

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=50849088286&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1159/000144057

DO - 10.1159/000144057

M3 - Article

C2 - 18758216

AN - SCOPUS:50849088286

VL - 81

SP - 179

EP - 185

JO - Urologia Internationalis

JF - Urologia Internationalis

SN - 0042-1138

IS - 2

ER -