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
. 2016 Aug;10(7-8):264-268.
doi: 10.5489/cuaj.3236.

Prostate volume estimations using magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound compared to radical prostatectomy specimens

Nicholas R Paterson  1 , Luke T Lavallée  2 , Laura N Nguyen  1 , Kelsey Witiuk  3 , James Ross  1 , Ranjeeta Mallick  3 , Wael Shabana  4 , Blair MacDonald  4 , Nicola Scheida  4 , Dean Fergusson  3 , Franco Momoli  3 , Sonya Cnossen  3 , Christopher Morash  1 , Ilias Cagiannos  1 , Rodney H Breau  2
Affiliations

Prostate volume estimations using magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound compared to radical prostatectomy specimens

Nicholas R Paterson et al. Can Urol Assoc J. 2016 Aug.

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Flow chart of patients included/excluded from study cohort. MRI: magnetic resonance imaging; TRUS: transrectal ultrasound.
Fig. 2A
Fig. 2A
Bland-Altman plot showing the agreement between transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and pathological volume estimates.
Fig. 2B
Fig. 2B
Bland-Altman plot showing the agreement between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and pathological volume estimates.
Fig. 2C
Fig. 2C
Bland-Altman plot showing the agreement between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) volume estimates.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Matthews G, Motta J, Fracehia J. The accuracy of transrectal ultrasound prostate volume estimation: Clinical correlations. J Clin Ultrasound. 1996;24:501–5. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0096(199611/12)24:9<501::AID-JCU2>3.0.CO;2-R. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Weiss BE, Wein AJ, Malkowicz SB, et al. Comparison of prostate volume measured by transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging: Is transrectal ultrasound suitable to determine which patients should undergo active surveillance? Urol Oncol. 2013;31:1436–40. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2012.03.002. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tewari A, Indudhara R, Shinohara K, et al. Comparison of transrectal ultrasound prostatic volume estimation with magnetic resonance imaging volume estimation and surgical specimen weight in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Clin Ultrasound. 1996;24:169–74. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0096(199605)24:4<169::AID-JCU2>3.0.CO;2-D. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nathan MS, Seenivasagam K, Mei Q, et al. Transrectal ultrasonography: Why are estimates of prostate volume and dimension so inaccurate? Brit J Urol. 1996;77:401–7. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410X.1996.90214.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lee JS, Chung BH. Transrectal ultrasound vs. magnetic resonance imaging in the estimation of prostate volume as compared with radical prosatectomy specimes. Urol Int. 2007;78:323–7. doi: 10.1159/000100836. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources