Limits...
Correlations between the various methods of estimating prostate volume: transabdominal, transrectal, and three-dimensional US.

Kim SH, Kim SH - Korean J Radiol (2008 Mar-Apr)

Bottom Line: The experienced examiner for the transrectal US method had the highest correlation (r = 0.967) and the significantly smallest difference (5.4 +/- 3.9 mL) compared to the other examiners (the beginner and the trained; p < 0.05).Bladder volume did not show significant correlation with the difference (r = -0.043, p > 0.05).Furthermore, no significant difference existed between examiners (p > 0.05).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Radiology, DongGuk University International Hospital, Goyang, Korea. kimsh@duih.org

ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate the correlations between prostate volumes estimated by transabdominal, transrectal, and three-dimensional US and the factors affecting the differences.

Materials and methods: The prostate volumes of 94 consecutive patients were measured by both transabdominal and transrectal US. Next, the prostate volumes of 58 other patients was measured by both transrectal and three-dimensional US. We evaluated the degree of correlation and mean difference in each comparison. We also analyzed possible factors affecting the differences, such as the experiences of examiners in transrectal US, bladder volume, and prostate volume.

Results: In the comparison of transabdominal and transrectal US methods, the mean difference was 8.4 +/- 10.5 mL and correlation coefficient (r) was 0.775 (p < 0.01). The experienced examiner for the transrectal US method had the highest correlation (r = 0.967) and the significantly smallest difference (5.4 +/- 3.9 mL) compared to the other examiners (the beginner and the trained; p < 0.05). Prostate volume measured by transrectal US showed a weak correlation with the difference (r = 0.360, p < 0.05). Bladder volume did not show significant correlation with the difference (r = -0.043, p > 0.05). The comparison between the transrectal and three-dimensional US methods revealed a mean difference of 3.7 +/- 3.4 mL and the correlation coefficient was 0.924 for the experienced examiner. Furthermore, no significant difference existed between examiners (p > 0.05). Prostate volume measured by transrectal US showed a positive correlation with the difference for the beginner only (r = 0.405, p < 0.05).

Conclusion: In the prostate volume estimation by US, experience in transrectal US is important in the correlation with transabdominal US, but not with three-dimensional US. Also, less experienced examiners' assessment of the prostate volume can be affected by prostate volume itself.

Show MeSH
Measurement of craniocaudal length of prostate on US. Craniocaudal length of prostate (between crosses) is measured on transabdominal US (A) and transrectal US (B) at mid-sagittal plane.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2627229&req=5

Figure 1: Measurement of craniocaudal length of prostate on US. Craniocaudal length of prostate (between crosses) is measured on transabdominal US (A) and transrectal US (B) at mid-sagittal plane.

Mentions: Ninety-four consecutive patients referred for the TRUS examination (age range, 42-76 years; mean, 58 years) were included in this study over the course of three months. In each patient, the prostate volume and bladder volume were measured by TAUS without additional bladder filling, followed by prostate volume measurement by TRUS. The volume estimation for both approaches was an ellipsoidal volume calculation; the prostate is considered ellipsoidal in shape and the volume (mL) is 0.523 ×width (cm) ×height (cm) ×length (cm) (9). The widths and heights were measured on axial planes and craniocaudal lengths on sagittal planes at their greatest diameter (Fig. 1) An Acuson Sequoia 512 (Siemens Medical Sol. Mountain View, CA) US scanner with either a 3.5 MHz-curved or a 7.5 MHz-endocavitary probe was used for all examinations.


Correlations between the various methods of estimating prostate volume: transabdominal, transrectal, and three-dimensional US.

Kim SH, Kim SH - Korean J Radiol (2008 Mar-Apr)

Measurement of craniocaudal length of prostate on US. Craniocaudal length of prostate (between crosses) is measured on transabdominal US (A) and transrectal US (B) at mid-sagittal plane.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2627229&req=5

Figure 1: Measurement of craniocaudal length of prostate on US. Craniocaudal length of prostate (between crosses) is measured on transabdominal US (A) and transrectal US (B) at mid-sagittal plane.
Mentions: Ninety-four consecutive patients referred for the TRUS examination (age range, 42-76 years; mean, 58 years) were included in this study over the course of three months. In each patient, the prostate volume and bladder volume were measured by TAUS without additional bladder filling, followed by prostate volume measurement by TRUS. The volume estimation for both approaches was an ellipsoidal volume calculation; the prostate is considered ellipsoidal in shape and the volume (mL) is 0.523 ×width (cm) ×height (cm) ×length (cm) (9). The widths and heights were measured on axial planes and craniocaudal lengths on sagittal planes at their greatest diameter (Fig. 1) An Acuson Sequoia 512 (Siemens Medical Sol. Mountain View, CA) US scanner with either a 3.5 MHz-curved or a 7.5 MHz-endocavitary probe was used for all examinations.

Bottom Line: The experienced examiner for the transrectal US method had the highest correlation (r = 0.967) and the significantly smallest difference (5.4 +/- 3.9 mL) compared to the other examiners (the beginner and the trained; p < 0.05).Bladder volume did not show significant correlation with the difference (r = -0.043, p > 0.05).Furthermore, no significant difference existed between examiners (p > 0.05).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Radiology, DongGuk University International Hospital, Goyang, Korea. kimsh@duih.org

ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate the correlations between prostate volumes estimated by transabdominal, transrectal, and three-dimensional US and the factors affecting the differences.

Materials and methods: The prostate volumes of 94 consecutive patients were measured by both transabdominal and transrectal US. Next, the prostate volumes of 58 other patients was measured by both transrectal and three-dimensional US. We evaluated the degree of correlation and mean difference in each comparison. We also analyzed possible factors affecting the differences, such as the experiences of examiners in transrectal US, bladder volume, and prostate volume.

Results: In the comparison of transabdominal and transrectal US methods, the mean difference was 8.4 +/- 10.5 mL and correlation coefficient (r) was 0.775 (p < 0.01). The experienced examiner for the transrectal US method had the highest correlation (r = 0.967) and the significantly smallest difference (5.4 +/- 3.9 mL) compared to the other examiners (the beginner and the trained; p < 0.05). Prostate volume measured by transrectal US showed a weak correlation with the difference (r = 0.360, p < 0.05). Bladder volume did not show significant correlation with the difference (r = -0.043, p > 0.05). The comparison between the transrectal and three-dimensional US methods revealed a mean difference of 3.7 +/- 3.4 mL and the correlation coefficient was 0.924 for the experienced examiner. Furthermore, no significant difference existed between examiners (p > 0.05). Prostate volume measured by transrectal US showed a positive correlation with the difference for the beginner only (r = 0.405, p < 0.05).

Conclusion: In the prostate volume estimation by US, experience in transrectal US is important in the correlation with transabdominal US, but not with three-dimensional US. Also, less experienced examiners' assessment of the prostate volume can be affected by prostate volume itself.

Show MeSH