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
Review
. 2019 Mar 3:2019:6932572.
doi: 10.1155/2019/6932572. eCollection 2019.

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

David R H Christie  1   2 , Christopher F Sharpley  2
Affiliations
Review

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

David R H Christie et al. Prostate Cancer. .

Abstract

Aim: The measurement of the volume of the prostate gland can have an influence on many clinical decisions. Various imaging methods have been used to measure it. Our aim was to conduct the first systematic review of their accuracy.

Methods: The literature describing the accuracy of imaging methods for measuring the prostate gland volume was systematically reviewed. Articles were included if they compared volume measurements obtained by medical imaging with a reference volume measurement obtained after removal of the gland by radical prostatectomy. Correlation and concordance statistics were summarised.

Results: 28 articles describing 7768 patients were identified. The imaging methods were ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging (US, CT, and MRI). Wide variations were noted but most articles about US and CT provided correlation coefficients that lay between 0.70 and 0.90, while those describing MRI seemed slightly more accurate at 0.80-0.96. When concordance was reported, it was similar; over- and underestimation of the prostate were variably reported. Most studies showed evidence of at least moderate bias and the quality of the studies was highly variable.

Discussion: The reported correlations were moderate to high in strength indicating that imaging is sufficiently accurate when quantitative measurements of prostate gland volume are required. MRI was slightly more accurate than the other methods.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Results of the search strategy.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Harris M. R. E., Harding E. J., Bates T. S., Speakman M. J. Gland volume in the assessment of prostatic disease: Does size matter? BJU International. 2007;100(3):506–508. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06939.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Olsson C. A., Lavery H. J., Sebrow D., et al. Does size matter? The significance of prostate size on pathologic and functional outcomes in patients undergoing robotic prostatectomy. Arab Journal of Urology. 2011;9(3):159–164. doi: 10.1016/j.aju.2011.10.002. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mandel P., Weinhold P., Michl U., Huland H., Graefen M., Tilki D. Impact of prostate volume on oncologic, perioperative, and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy. The Prostate. 2015;75(13):1436–1446. doi: 10.1002/pros.23023. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., Altman D. G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339 doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2535.b2535 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shea B. J., Reeves B. C., Wells G., et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;21:p. 358. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4008.j4008 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources