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
Observational Study
. 2023 Apr 17;23(1):62.
doi: 10.1186/s12894-023-01234-5.

Comparison of prostate volume measured by transabdominal ultrasound and MRI with the radical prostatectomy specimen volume: a retrospective observational study

Shikuan Guo #  1 , Jingliang Zhang #  1 , Jianhua Jiao #  1 , Zeyu Li  1 , Peng Wu  1 , Yuming Jing  1 , Weijun Qin #  2 , Fuli Wang #  1 , Shuaijun Ma #  1
Affiliations
Observational Study

Comparison of prostate volume measured by transabdominal ultrasound and MRI with the radical prostatectomy specimen volume: a retrospective observational study

Shikuan Guo et al. BMC Urol. .

Abstract

Background: Few studies have compared the use of transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to measure prostate volume (PV). In this study, we evaluate the accuracy and reliability of PV measured by TAUS and MRI.

Methods: A total of 106 patients who underwent TAUS and MRI prior to radical prostatectomy were retrospectively analyzed. The TAUS-based and MRI-based PV were calculated using the ellipsoid formula. The specimen volume measured by the water-displacement method was used as a reference standard. Correlation analysis and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were performed to compare different measurement methods and Bland Altman plots were drawn to assess the agreement.

Results: There was a high degree of correlation and agreement between the specimen volume and PV measured with TAUS (r = 0.838, p < 0.01; ICC = 0.83) and MRI (r = 0.914, p < 0.01; ICC = 0.90). TAUS overestimated specimen volume by 2.4ml, but the difference was independent of specimen volume (p = 0.19). MRI underestimated specimen volume by 1.7ml, the direction and magnitude of the difference varied with specimen volume (p < 0.01). The percentage error of PV measured by TAUS and MRI was within ± 20% in 65/106(61%) and 87/106(82%), respectively. In patients with PV greater than 50 ml, MRI volume still correlated strongly with specimen volume (r = 0.837, p < 0.01), while TAUS volume showed only moderate correlation with specimen (r = 0.665, p < 0.01) or MRI volume (r = 0.678, p < 0.01).

Conclusions: This study demonstrated that PV measured by MRI and TAUS is highly correlated and reliable with the specimen volume. MRI might be a more appropriate choice for measuring the large prostate.

Keywords: Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate cancer; Prostate volume; Transabdominal ultrasound.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Measurement of prostate diameter when using ellipsoid formula to calculate prostate volume on transabdominal ultrasound. (a) maximum transverse diameter (width) measured on axial scanning. (b) Maximum longitudinal diameter (length) and maximum anteroposterior diameter (height) measured on midsagittal scanning
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Measurement of prostate diameter when using ellipsoid formula to calculate prostate volume on MRI. (a) maximum transverse diameter (width) measured on axial T2W MRI. (b) Maximum longitudinal diameter (length) and maximum anteroposterior diameter (height) measured on midsagittal T2W MRI. T2W = T2 weighted; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Scatterplot examination and linear regression analysis between different prostate volume measurements. (a) TAUS volume compared with the specimen volume; (b) MRI volume compared with the specimen volume; (c) the difference between MRI volume and specimen volume compared with the specimen volume; (d) TAUS volume compared with MRI volume. MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; TAUS, transabdominal ultrasound
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Bland-Altman plots show comparisons between (a) TAUS volume and the specimen volume; (b) MRI volume and the specimen volume; (c) TAUS volume and MRI volume. U-LOA, upper limit of agreement; L-LOA, lower limit of agreement; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; TAUS, transabdominal ultrasound
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Scatterplot examination and linear regression analysis between different prostate volume measurements in patients with prostate volume bigger than 50 ml. (a) TAUS volume versus the specimen volume;(b) MRI volume versus the specimen volume; (c) TAUS volume versus MRI volume. MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; TAUS, transabdominal ultrasound
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Morlacco A, Modonutti D, Motterle G, Martino F, Dal Moro F, Novara G. Nomograms in Urologic Oncology: Lights and Shadows.J Clin Med. 2021;10(5). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, Rannikko A, et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol. 2013;63(4):597–603. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.005. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Roobol MJ, van Vugt HA, Loeb S, Zhu X, Bul M, Bangma CH, et al. Prediction of prostate cancer risk: the role of prostate volume and digital rectal examination in the ERSPC risk calculators. Eur Urol. 2012;61(3):577–83. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.11.012. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Roobol MJ, Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Jones JS, Kattan MW, Klein EA, et al. Importance of prostate volume in the european Randomised study of screening for prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators: results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group. World J Urol. 2012;30(2):149–55. doi: 10.1007/s00345-011-0804-y. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Briganti A, Chun FK, Suardi N, Gallina A, Walz J, Graefen M, et al. Prostate volume and adverse prostate cancer features: fact not artifact. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43(18):2669–77. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2007.09.022. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types