Accuracy is Key: Transrectal Ultrasound Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Determine Prostatic Volume

被引:0
作者
Feldman, Dana [1 ]
Sandberg, Maxwell [2 ]
Xu, Mark [2 ]
Whitman, Wyatt [2 ]
Hingu, Janmejay [2 ]
Underwood, Gavin [3 ]
Ye, Emily [3 ]
Catley, Sean [3 ]
Costa, Claudia Marie [3 ]
Davis III, Ronald [2 ]
Hemal, Ashok [2 ]
Rodriguez, Alejandro [2 ]
机构
[1] Atrium Hlth Wake Forest Baptist, Dept Gen Surg, Winston Salem, NC 27101 USA
[2] Atrium Hlth Wake Forest Baptist, Dept Urol, Winston Salem, NC 27101 USA
[3] Wake Forest Univ, Bowman Gray Sch Med, Winston Salem, NC 27101 USA
来源
ARCHIVOS ESPANOLES DE UROLOGIA | 2025年 / 78卷 / 02期
关键词
prostate cancer; size; MRI; TRUS; prostatectomy; RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; CANCER; ULTRASONOGRAPHY; DENSITY; WEIGHT; IMPACT; MEN;
D O I
10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20257802.21
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: A multitude of options can be used to image the prostate, but transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging are the mainstays. Accuracy in prostate measurements is key to the preoperative planning of any surgical intervention planned on the prostate such as tissue resection or prostatectomy. Some evidence exists that magnetic resonance imaging is the most accurate modality, but given its cost, the clinical significance remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging prostate volumes with prostate gross specimens in men having tissue-confirmed prostate cancer who underwent robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy to determine accuracy in sizing. Methods: This study was a retrospective analysis conducted on men who underwent robotic prostatectomy for prostate cancer and had a preoperative transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging prostate size measurement (147 men in total) between 2012-2024. Patients were required to undergo robotic prostatectomy <= 2 months from the time of transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging prostate-size determination. Results: Mean transrectal ultrasound was significantly smaller on average than magnetic resonance imaging prostate volume (-4.8 mL; p G 0.001). Transrectal ultrasound (-14.4 mL) and magnetic resonance imaging (-9.5 mL) were significantly smaller than actual prostate weight (p G 0.001). The mean difference between transrectal ultrasound volume and prostate weight was significantly greater from the mean difference between magnetic resonance imaging volume and prostate weight (p G 0.001). Participants with high-grade (Gleason grade >= 8) and non-high-grade cancer (Gleason grade G8) did not differ in actual prostate weight after robotic radical prostatectomy or in estimated prostate volume (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Although transrectal ultrasound appears to be less accurate than magnetic resonance imaging in estimating prostate size, the difference is small, and it remains an adequate imaging modality in patients with prostate cancer.
引用
收藏
页码:151 / 156
页数:6
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]   Role of MRI in diagnosis of prostate cancer and correlation of results with transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy "TRUS" [J].
Ahmed, Islam Hussien Abd Elaziz ;
Mohamed Ali Hassan, Hend Galal Eldeen ;
Abo ElMaaty, Mohamed El Gharib ;
ElDaisty El Metwally, Shaima El Metwally .
EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2022, 53 (01)
[2]   Cost and efficacy comparison of five prostate biopsy modalities: a platform for integrating cost into novel-platform comparative research [J].
Altok, Muammer ;
Kim, Bumyang ;
Patel, Bina B. ;
Shih, Ya-Chen Tina ;
Ward, John F. ;
McRae, Stephen E. ;
Chapin, Brian F. ;
Pisters, Louis L. ;
Pettaway, Curtis A. ;
Kim, Jeri ;
Demirel, Huseyin C. ;
Davis, John W. .
PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES, 2018, 21 (04) :524-532
[3]   Accurate Prostate Volumes from Manual Calculations-A Comparison of PI-RADS v2 and v2.1 Measurement Techniques [J].
An, Julie Y. ;
Fowler, Kathryn J. .
ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2021, 28 (11) :1557-1558
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2024, Procedure Price Lookup
[5]  
Magnetic Resonance (e.g., Proton) Imaging, Pelvis, without contrast material(s), followed by con- trast material(s) and further sequences
[6]   Determination of Prostate Volume: A Comparison of Contemporary Methods [J].
Bezinque, Adam ;
Moriarity, Andrew ;
Farrell, Crystal ;
Peabody, Henry ;
Noyes, Sabrina L. ;
Lane, Brian R. .
ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2018, 25 (12) :1582-1587
[7]   Prostate volume measured preoperatively predicts for organ-confined disease in men with clinically localized prostate cancer [J].
Bianco, Fernando J., Jr. ;
Mallah, Kozhaya N. ;
Korets, Ruslan ;
Hricak, Hedvig ;
Scardino, Peter T. ;
Kattan, Michael W. .
UROLOGY, 2007, 69 (02) :343-346
[8]   Accuracy of Transrectal Ultrasonography to Evaluate Pathologic Prostate Weight: Correlation With Various Prostate Size Groups [J].
Bienz, Marc ;
Hueber, Pierre-Alain ;
Al-Hathal, Naif ;
McCormack, Michael ;
Bhojani, Naeem ;
Trinh, Quoc-Dien ;
Zorn, Kevin C. .
UROLOGY, 2014, 84 (01) :170-175
[9]   Prostate Volumetric Assessment by Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Transrectal Ultrasound: Impact of Variation in Calculated Prostate-Specific Antigen Density on Patient Eligibility for Active Surveillance Program [J].
Dianat, Seyed Saeid ;
Ruiz, Ramiro M. Rancier ;
Bonekamp, David ;
Carter, H. Ballentine ;
Macura, Katarzyna J. .
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2013, 37 (04) :589-595
[10]   Prostate size and risk of high-grade, advanced prostate cancer and biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy: A search database study [J].
Freedland, SJ ;
Isaacs, WB ;
Platz, EA ;
Terris, MK ;
Aronson, WJ ;
Amling, CL ;
Presti, JC ;
Kane, CJ .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2005, 23 (30) :7546-7554