Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2008;81(2):179-85.
doi: 10.1159/000144057. Epub 2008 Aug 29.

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

Affiliations
Comparative Study

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

Chang Wook Jeong et al. Urol Int. 2008.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources