Transrectal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in the estimation of prostate volume as compared with radical prostatectomy specimens

Jae Seok Lee, Byung Ha Chung

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

40 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: There are relatively few studies that compare the use of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to estimate the prostate volume. In this study, we compared the prostate volumes measured with MRI and TRUS with a surgical specimen volume. Patients and Methods: Seventy-three patients underwent TRUS examination of the prostate prior to radical prostatectomy. All specimens were weighed and measured when freshly excised. The corresponding volume measurements calculated using TRUS and MRI were compared retrospectively with the measured volumes of freshly excised prostate. Results: The volume measured with TRUS and MRI was linearly related to the radical prostatectomy volume. The estimated increase in the prostate volumes measured with TRUS and MRI per specimen volume was 0.9508 and 0.9331 by regression analysis, respectively. If the prostate volumes were <35 cm 3, the prostate volumes measured with MRI overestimated the specimen volumes. If the prostate volumes were >35 cm3, the prostate volumes measured with MRI underestimated the specimen volumes. The classic ellipsoid formula was adequate for determining the prostate volume. Conclusions: In this study, MRI and TRUS gave different volumes. MRI is more accurate than TRUS for determining the prostate volume. However, because TRUS is inexpensive, noninvasive, and almost as accurate as MRI, it should be the preferred method for measuring the prostate volume.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)323-327
Number of pages5
JournalUrologia Internationalis
Volume78
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2007 May 1

Fingerprint

Prostatectomy
Prostate
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Regression Analysis

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Urology

Cite this

@article{fea70639a6584f1cb58f7fa915ce3308,
title = "Transrectal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in the estimation of prostate volume as compared with radical prostatectomy specimens",
abstract = "Introduction: There are relatively few studies that compare the use of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to estimate the prostate volume. In this study, we compared the prostate volumes measured with MRI and TRUS with a surgical specimen volume. Patients and Methods: Seventy-three patients underwent TRUS examination of the prostate prior to radical prostatectomy. All specimens were weighed and measured when freshly excised. The corresponding volume measurements calculated using TRUS and MRI were compared retrospectively with the measured volumes of freshly excised prostate. Results: The volume measured with TRUS and MRI was linearly related to the radical prostatectomy volume. The estimated increase in the prostate volumes measured with TRUS and MRI per specimen volume was 0.9508 and 0.9331 by regression analysis, respectively. If the prostate volumes were <35 cm 3, the prostate volumes measured with MRI overestimated the specimen volumes. If the prostate volumes were >35 cm3, the prostate volumes measured with MRI underestimated the specimen volumes. The classic ellipsoid formula was adequate for determining the prostate volume. Conclusions: In this study, MRI and TRUS gave different volumes. MRI is more accurate than TRUS for determining the prostate volume. However, because TRUS is inexpensive, noninvasive, and almost as accurate as MRI, it should be the preferred method for measuring the prostate volume.",
author = "Lee, {Jae Seok} and Chung, {Byung Ha}",
year = "2007",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1159/000100836",
language = "English",
volume = "78",
pages = "323--327",
journal = "Urologia Internationalis",
issn = "0042-1138",
publisher = "S. Karger AG",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Transrectal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in the estimation of prostate volume as compared with radical prostatectomy specimens

AU - Lee, Jae Seok

AU - Chung, Byung Ha

PY - 2007/5/1

Y1 - 2007/5/1

N2 - Introduction: There are relatively few studies that compare the use of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to estimate the prostate volume. In this study, we compared the prostate volumes measured with MRI and TRUS with a surgical specimen volume. Patients and Methods: Seventy-three patients underwent TRUS examination of the prostate prior to radical prostatectomy. All specimens were weighed and measured when freshly excised. The corresponding volume measurements calculated using TRUS and MRI were compared retrospectively with the measured volumes of freshly excised prostate. Results: The volume measured with TRUS and MRI was linearly related to the radical prostatectomy volume. The estimated increase in the prostate volumes measured with TRUS and MRI per specimen volume was 0.9508 and 0.9331 by regression analysis, respectively. If the prostate volumes were <35 cm 3, the prostate volumes measured with MRI overestimated the specimen volumes. If the prostate volumes were >35 cm3, the prostate volumes measured with MRI underestimated the specimen volumes. The classic ellipsoid formula was adequate for determining the prostate volume. Conclusions: In this study, MRI and TRUS gave different volumes. MRI is more accurate than TRUS for determining the prostate volume. However, because TRUS is inexpensive, noninvasive, and almost as accurate as MRI, it should be the preferred method for measuring the prostate volume.

AB - Introduction: There are relatively few studies that compare the use of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to estimate the prostate volume. In this study, we compared the prostate volumes measured with MRI and TRUS with a surgical specimen volume. Patients and Methods: Seventy-three patients underwent TRUS examination of the prostate prior to radical prostatectomy. All specimens were weighed and measured when freshly excised. The corresponding volume measurements calculated using TRUS and MRI were compared retrospectively with the measured volumes of freshly excised prostate. Results: The volume measured with TRUS and MRI was linearly related to the radical prostatectomy volume. The estimated increase in the prostate volumes measured with TRUS and MRI per specimen volume was 0.9508 and 0.9331 by regression analysis, respectively. If the prostate volumes were <35 cm 3, the prostate volumes measured with MRI overestimated the specimen volumes. If the prostate volumes were >35 cm3, the prostate volumes measured with MRI underestimated the specimen volumes. The classic ellipsoid formula was adequate for determining the prostate volume. Conclusions: In this study, MRI and TRUS gave different volumes. MRI is more accurate than TRUS for determining the prostate volume. However, because TRUS is inexpensive, noninvasive, and almost as accurate as MRI, it should be the preferred method for measuring the prostate volume.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34248223152&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34248223152&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1159/000100836

DO - 10.1159/000100836

M3 - Article

C2 - 17495490

AN - SCOPUS:34248223152

VL - 78

SP - 323

EP - 327

JO - Urologia Internationalis

JF - Urologia Internationalis

SN - 0042-1138

IS - 4

ER -