Abstract
Background: Prostate volume (PV) is a useful tool in risk stratification, diagnosis, and follow-up of numerous prostatic diseases including prostate cancer and benign prostatic hypertrophy. There is currently no accepted ideal PV measurement method. Objective: This study compares multiple means of PV estimation, including digital rectal examination (DRE), transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and radical prostatectomy specimens to determine the best volume measurement style. Methods: A retrospective, observational, single-site study with patients identified using an institutional database was performed. A total of 197 patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy were considered. Data collected included age, serum PSA at the time of the prostate biopsy, clinical T stage, Gleason score, and PVs for each of the following methods: DRE, TRUS, MRI, and surgical specimen weight (SPW) and volume. Results: A paired t test was performed, which reported a statistically significant difference between PV measures (DRE, TRUS, MRI ellipsoid, MRI bullet, SP ellipsoid, and SP bullet) and the actual prostate weight. Lowest differences were reported for SP ellipsoid volume (M = −2.37; standard deviation [SD] = 10.227; t[167] = −3.011; and p = 0.003), MRI ellipsoid volume (M = −4.318; SD = 9.53; t[167] = −5.87; and p = 0.000), and MRI bullet volume (M = 5.31; SD = 10.77; t[167] = 6.387; and p = 0.000). Conclusion: The PV obtained by MRI has proven to correlate with the PV obtained via auto-segmentation software as well as actual SPW, while also being more cost-effective and time-efficient. Therefore, demonstrating that MRI estimated the PV is an adequate method for use in clinical practice for therapeutic planning and patient follow-up.
References
1.
Oesterling
JE
. Prostate specific antigen: a critical assessment of the most useful tumor marker for adenocarcinoma of the prostate
. J Urol
. 1991
;145
:907
–23
. .2.
Schroder
FH
, Hugosson
J
, Roobol
MJ
, Tammela
TLJ
, Ciatto
S
, Nelen
V
, Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study
. N Engl J Med
. 2009
;360
:1320
–8
.3.
Welch
HG
, Black
WC
. Overdiagnosis in cancer
. J Natl Cancer Inst
. 2010
;102
:605
–13
. .4.
Bul
M
, Zhu
X
, Valdagni
R
, Pickles
T
, Kakehi
Y
, Rannikko
A
, Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study
. Eur Urol
. 2013
;63
:597
–603
. .5.
Roobol
MJ
, van Vugt
HA
, Loeb
S
, Zhu
X
, Bul
M
, Bangma
CH
, Prediction of prostate cancer risk: the role of prostate volume and digital rectal examination in the ERSPC risk calculators
. Eur Urol
. 2012
;61
:577
–83
. .6.
Porcaro
AB
, Novella
G
, Molinari
A
, Terrin
A
, Minja
A
, De Marco
V
, Prostate volume index and chronic inflammation of the prostate type IV with respect to the risk of prostate cancer
. Urol Int
. 2015
;94
:270
–85
. .7.
Cher
ML
, Dhir
A
, Auffenberg
GB
, Linsell
S
, Gao
Y
, Rosenberg
B
, Appropriateness criteria for active surveillance of prostate cancer
. J Urol
. 2017
;197
:67
–74
. .8.
Eskicorapci
SY
, Guliyev
F
, Akdogan
B
, Dogan
HS
, Ergen
A
, Ozen
H
. Individualization of the biopsy protocol according to the prostate gland volume for prostate cancer detection
. J Urol
. 2005
;173
:1536
–40
. .9.
Kucway
R
, Vicini
F
, Huang
R
, Stromberg
J
, Gonzalez
J
, Martinez
A
. Prostate volume reduction with androgen deprivation therapy before interstitial brachytherapy
. J Urol
. 2002
;167
:2443
–7
. .10.
McConnell
JD
, Bruskewitz
R
, Walsh
P
, Andriole
G
, Lieber
M
, Holtgrewe
HL
, The effect of finasteride on the risk of acute urinary retention and the need for surgical treatment among men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Finasteride long-term efficacy and safety study group
. N Engl J Med
. 1998
;338
:557
–63
. .11.
Garvey
B
, Türkbey
B
, Truong
H
, Bernardo
M
, Periaswamy
S
, Choyke
PL
. Clinical value of prostate segmentation and volume determination on MRI in benign prostatic hyperplasia
. Diagn Interv Radiol
. 2014
;20
:229
–33
. .12.
Roehrborn
CG
, Girman
CJ
, Rhodes
T
, Hanson
KA
, Collins
GN
, Sech
SM
, Correlation between prostate size estimated by digital rectal examination and measured by transrectal ultrasound
. Urology
. 1997
;49
:548
–57
. .13.
Ghose
S
, Oliver
A
, Martí
R
, Lladó
X
, Freixenet
J
, Mitra
J
, Statistical shape and texture model of quadrature phase information for prostate segmentation
. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg
. 2012
;7
:43
–55
. .14.
Rapisarda
S
, Bada
M
, Crocetto
F
, Barone
B
, Arcaniolo
D
, Polara
A
, The role of multiparametric resonance and biopsy in prostate cancer detection: comparison with definitive histological report after laparoscopic/robotic radical prostatectomy
. Abdom Radiol
. 2020
;45
(12
):4178
–84
.15.
Lee
JS
, Chung
BH
. Transrectal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in the estimation of prostate volume as compared with radical prostatectomy specimens
. Urol Int
. 2007
;78
(4
):323
–7
. .16.
al-Rimawi
M
, Griffiths
DJ
, Boake
RC
, Mador
DR
, Johnson
MA
. Transrectal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in the estimation of prostatic volume
. Br J Urol
. 1994
;74
:596
–600
. .17.
Sosna
J
, Rofsky
NM
, Gaston
SM
, DeWolf
WC
, Lenkinski
RE
. Determinations of prostate volume at 3-Tesla using an external phased array coil: comparison to pathologic specimens
. Acad Radiol
. 2003
;10
:846
–53
. .18.
Bezinque
A
, Moriarity
A
, Farrell
C
, Peabody
H
, Noyes
SL
, Lane
BR
. Determination of prostate volume: a comparison of contemporary methods
. Acad Radiol
. 2018
;25
(12
):1582
–7
. .19.
Toth
R
, Bloch
BN
, Genega
EM
, Rofsky
NM
, Lenkinski
RE
, Rosen
MA
, Accurate prostate volume estimation using multifeature active shape models on T2-weighted MRI
. Acad Radiol
. 2011
;18
:745
–54
. .20.
Eri
LM
, Thomassen
H
, Brennhovd
B
, Håheim
LL
. Accuracy and repeatability of prostate volume measurements by transrectal ultrasound
. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis
. 2002
;5
:273
–8
. .21.
Littrup
PJ
, Kane
RA
, Williams
CR
, Egglin
TK
, Lee
F
, Torp-Pedersen
S
, Determination of prostate volume with transrectal US for cancer screening. Part I. Comparison with prostate-specific antigen assays
. Radiology
. 1991
;178
:537
–42
.22.
Crocetto
F
, Barone
B
, De Luca
L
, Creta
M
. Granulomatous prostatitis: a challenging differential diagnosis to take into consideration
. Future Oncol
. 2020
;16
:805
–6
. .23.
De Luca
L
, Crocetto
F
, Barone
B
, Creta
M
, Pesce
S
, Aveta
A
, Granulomatous prostatitis mimicking prostate cancer in a patient with psoriatic arthritis: a case report
. Future Sci OA
. 2020
;6
:FSO591
. .24.
Kasel-Seibert
M
, Lehmann
T
, Aschenbach
R
, Guettler
FV
, Abubrig
M
, Grimm
MO
, Assessment of PI-RADS v2 for the detection of prostate cancer
. Eur J Radiol
. 2016
;85
(4
):726
–31
. .25.
Turkbey
B
, Fotin
SV
, Huang
RJ
, Yin
Y
, Daar
D
, Aras
O
, Fully automated prostate segmentation on MRI: comparison with manual segmentation methods and specimen volumes
. AJR Am J Roentgenol
. 2013
;201
:W720
–9
. .26.
Ghose
S
, Oliver
A
, Martí
R
, Lladó
X
, Vilanova
JC
, Freixenet
J
, A survey of prostate segmentation methodologies in ultrasound, magnetic resonance and computed tomography images
. Comput Methods Programs Biomed
. 2012
;108
:262
–87
. .27.
Bezinque
A
, Moriarity
A
, Farrell
C
, Peabody
H
, Noyes
SL
, Lane
BR
. Determination of prostate volume: a comparison of contemporary methods
. Acad Radiol
. 2018 Dec
;25
(12
):1582
–7
. .28.
Christie
DRH
, Sharpley
CF
. How accurately can prostate gland imaging measure the prostate gland volume? Results of a systematic review
. Prostate Cancer
. 2019
;2019
:6932572
. .29.
Kandıralı
E
, Temiz
MZ
, Çolakerol
A
, Yürük
E
, Semerciöz
A
, Müslümanoğlu
AY
. Does the prostate volume always effect cancer detection rate in prostate biopsy? Additional role of prostate-specific antigen levels: a retrospective analysis of 2079 patients
. Turk J Urol
. 2018
;45
(2
):103
–7
.30.
Ferro
M
, Lucarelli
G
, Bruzzese
D
, Perdonà
S
, Mazzarella
C
, Perruolo
G
, Improving the prediction of pathologic outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: the value of prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3), prostate health index (phi) and sarcosine
. Anticancer Res
. 2015
;35
(2
):1017
–23
.31.
Ferro
M
, Musi
G
, Serino
A
, Cozzi
G
, Mistretta
FA
, Costa
B
, Neutrophil, platelets, and eosinophil to lymphocyte ratios predict gleason score upgrading in low-risk prostate cancer patients
. Urol Int
. 2019
;102
(1
):43
–50
. .32.
Ferro
M
, Musi
G
, Matei
DV
, Mistretta
AF
, Luzzago
S
, Cozzi
G
, Assessment of PSIM (prostatic systemic inflammatorymarkers) score in predicting pathologic features at robotic radical prostatectomy in patients with low-risk prostatecancer who met the inclusion criteria for active surveillance
. Diagnostics
. 2021
;11
(2
):355
.33.
Crocetto
F
, Boccellino
M
, Barone
B
, Di Zazzo
E
, Sciarra
A
, Galasso
G
, The crosstalk between prostate cancer and microbiota inflammation: nutraceutical products are useful to balance this interplay?
Nutrients
. 2020
;12
(9
):2648
. .34.
Rodriguez
E
Jr, Skarecky
D
, Narula
N
, Ahlering
TE
. Prostate volume estimation using the ellipsoid formula consistently underestimates actual gland size
. J Urol
. 2008
;179
(2
):501
–3
. .35.
Chen
SS
, Hong
JG
, Hsiao
YJ
, Chang
LS
. The correlation between clinical outcome and residual prostatic weight ratio after transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia
. BJU Int
. 2000
;85
(1
):79
–82
. .36.
Malemo
K
, Galukande
M
, Hawkes
M
, Bugeza
S
, Nyavandu
K
, Kaggwa
S
. Validation of supra-pubic ultrasonography for preoperative prostate volume measurement in sub-Saharan Africa
. Int Urol Nephrol
. 2011
;43
(2
):283
–8
. .37.
Lukacs
S
, Vale
J
, Mazaris
E
. Difference between actual vs. pathology prostate weight in TURP and radical robotic-assisted prostatectomy specimen
. Int Braz J Urol
. 2014
;40
(6
):823
–7
. .38.
Lee
JS
, Chung
BH
. Transrectal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in the estimation of prostate volume as compared with radical prostatectomy specimens
. Urol Int
. 2007
;78
:323
–7
. .© 2021 S. Karger AG, Basel
2021
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.
