A comparison of prostate volumes measured using transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging; and the effect of their differences on PSA density

Česká verzia

Authors: Jiří Stejskal ¹; Vanda Adamcová ¹; Adam Pavličko ²; Miroslav Záleský ¹; Zuzana Ryznarová ³; Jana Votrubová ²; Roman Zachoval ¹
Authors place of work: Urologická klinika 3. LF UK a Thomayerovy nemocnice, Praha ¹; Radiodiagnostické oddělení, Thomayerova nemocnice, Praha ²; Radiologické oddělení, Nemocnice na Homolce, Praha ³
Published in the journal: Ces Urol 2019; 23(4): 325-332
Category: Original Articles

Summary

Aim: The aim of this study is to compare prostate volumes and calculated PSA densities measured by transrectal ultrasound performed by urologists with different levels of experience, and prostate volumes calculated based on magnetic resonance measurements.

Methods: The study comprises patients who underwent transrectal needle biopsy between February 2015 and November 2018. All of these patients underwent a multiparametric prostate MR using 1,5T Signa HDXT GE with endorectal coil beforehand. The ultrasound measurement, done using the Toshiba Applio 500 device with end‑fire endorectal probe, was performed by three urologists with two, seven and 20 years of clinical experience. Prostate volume was in all patients calculated by using the largest diameters in three perpendicular axes in the „width x height x length x 0.523” formula. PSA density was then calculated as total PSA/prostate volume in millilitres.

Results: A total of 582 were evaluated. The mean age was 62.86 years (31–91), average PSA was 8.70 ng/ml (0.53–75.00).

The mean difference between TRUS and MR measurement was +8.41 ml. The difference was +3.66 ml for the examiner with twenty years of experience, +11.19 ml for the examiner with seven years of experience and +8.12 ml for the examiner with two years of experience.

The average difference in PSA density between TRUS and MR was ‑0.025 ng/ml/ml. Using the PSA density cut‑off value of 0.15 ng/ml/ml and 0.20 ng/ ml/ml to indicate prostate biopsy, 8 % or 6 % less patients would have undergone prostate biopsy when using TRUS than with MR respectively.

Conclusion: In this cohort, transrectal ultrasonography yielded larger prostate volume estimates than magnetic resonance imaging; subsequently 6 % or 8 % less biopsies would have been performed when using PSA density as the only criterion for prostate biopsy.

Keywords:

PSA density – Prostate size – transrectal ultrasonography – magnetic resonance of the prostate

Zdroje

1. Fiala V, Sobotka R, Vaľová Z, et al. Zkušenosti s použitím indexu zdraví prostaty v klinické praxi. Ces Urol 2017; 21(4): 284–288.

2. Ryšánková K, Bartoš V, Krhut J, et al. (‑2)proPSA a Index zdravé prostaty (PHI) v predikci výskytu karcinomu prostaty v transrektálních biopsiích. Ces Urol 2018; 22(1): 40–47.

3. Hansen NL, Barrett T, Koo B, et al. The influence of prostate‑specific antigen density on positive and negative predictive values of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect Gleason score 7–10 prostate cancer in a repeat biopsy setting. BJU Int. 2017; 119(5): 724–730.

4. Distler FA, Radtke JP, Bonekamp D, et al. The Value of PSA Density in Combination with PI‑RADSTM for the Accuracy of Prostate Cancer Prediction. J Urol. 2017; 198(3): 575–582.

5. Zaleský M, Stejskal J, Adamcová V, et al. Možnosti využití MRI a PSA denzity v indikaci biopsie prostaty. Ces Urol [Internet]. 2019; Dostupné z: https://czechurol.cz/artkey/cur‑000000‑0204.php.

6. Murciano ‑Goroff YR, Wolfsberger LD, Parekh A, et al. Variability in MRI vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable‑risk prostate cancer patients: a case series. Radiat Oncol Lond Engl [Internet]. 9. září 2014 [citován 18. březen 2019]; 9. Dostupné z: https://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4261899/.

7. Watanabe H, Igari D, Tanahashi Y, Harada K, Saitoh M. Transrectal ultrasonotomography of the prostate. J Urol. 1975; 114(5): 734–739.

8. Eri LM, Thomassen H, Brennhovd B, Håheim LL. Accuracy and repeatability of prostate volume measurements by transrectal ultrasound. Prostate Cancer Prostatic, DiS. 2002; 5(4): 273.

9. Azulay D‑OD, Murphy P, Graham J. The accuracy of prostate volume measurement from ultrasound images: A quasi‑Monte Carlo simulation study using magnetic resonance imaging. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2013; 37(7): 628–635.

10. Chung JWNCHF, Vries SH de, Raaijmakers R, Postma R, Bosch JLHR, Mastrigt R van. Prostate Volume Ultrasonography: The Influence of Transabdominal versus Transrectal Approach, Device Type and Operator. Eur Urol. 2004; 46(3): 352–356.

11. Bienz M, Hueber P‑A, Al ‑Hathal N, et al. Accuracy of Transrectal Ultrasonography to Evaluate Pathologic Prostate Weight: Correlation With Various Prostate Size Groups. Urology 2014; 84(1): 169–174.

12. Nunez‑Nateras R, et al. Accuracy of ultrasound in estimation of prostate weight: comparison of urologists and radiologists. Can J Urol 2010; 17(1): 4985–4988.

13. Hricak H, Jeffrey RB, Dooms GC, Tanagho EA. Evaluation of prostate size: A comparison of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. Urol Radiol 1988; 9(1): 1.

14. Chernyak V, Flusberg M, Kurteva T, Ghavamian R, Rozenblit AM. Accuracy of prostate measurements on MRI with and without an endorectal coil. Clin Imaging. 2015; 39(1): 85–88.

15. Terris MK, Stamey TA. Determination of prostate volume by transrectal ultrasound. J Urol 1991; 145(5): 984–987.

16. 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): 323–327.

17. Weiss BE, Wein AJ, Malkowicz SB, Guzzo TJ. Comparison of prostate volume measured by transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging: is transrectal ultrasound suitable to determine which patients should undergo active surveillance? Urol Oncol 2013; 31(8): 1436–1440.

18. Christie DRH, Sharpley CF. How Accurately Can Prostate Gland Imaging Measure the Prostate Gland Volume? Results of a Systematic Review. Prostate Cancer 20903111; 2019: 1–12.

19. Osman M, Shebel H, Sankineni S, et al. Whole Prostate Volume and Shape Changes with the Use of an Inflatable and Flexible Endorectal Coil. Radiol Res Pract 2014: 1–6.

20. Paterson NR, Lavallée LT, Nguyen LN, et al. Prostate volume estimations using magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound compared to radical prostatectomy specimens. Can Urol Assoc J. 2016; 10(7–8): 264–268.