Abstract
Introduction: Accurate in vivo prostate volume (PV) estimation is important for obtaining prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) and further predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-estimated PV compared to both volume and weight of radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods: We identified 310 PCa patients who underwent RP following combined targeted and systematic biopsy in our institution from September 2019 to February 2021. The MRI PV was determined using a semiautomated segmentation algorithm. RP PV was calculated using the prolate ellipsoid formula (length × width × height × π/6). Formula (prostate weight = [actual weight−3.8 g]/1.05 g/mL) was applied, and the resulting volume was used in further analysis. Results: The median PV from MRI, RP, and RP weight were 39 mL, 38 mL, and 44 mL, respectively. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients (ρ) were 0.841 (MRI PV vs. RP weight), 0.758 (RP PV vs. RP weight), and 0.707 (MRI PV vs. RP PV) (all p < 0.001). Decreased correlation between the MRI PV and RP PV was observed in the larger (more than 55 mL) prostate. The PSAD derived from MRI PV showed most efficient to detect csPCa in RP specimen (57.9% vs. 57.6% vs. 45.4%). Conclusion: MRI PV is correlated better with RP weight than calculated RP PV, especially in larger prostate. The high csPCa detection rate in final pathology suggested that PSAD derived from MRI PV can be confidently used in clinical practice.
References
1.
Sfoungaristos
S
, Perimenis
P
. PSA density is superior than PSA and Gleason score for adverse pathologic features prediction in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer
. Can Urol Assoc J
. 2012
;6
(1
):46
–50
.2.
Washino
S
, Okochi
T
, Saito
K
, Konishi
T
, Hirai
M
, Kobayashi
Y
. Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naive patients
. BJU Int
. 2017
;119
(2
):225
–33
.3.
Newton
MR
, Phillips
S
, Chang
SS
, Clark
PE
, Cookson
MS
, Davis
R
. Smaller prostate size predicts high grade prostate cancer at final pathology
. J Urol
. 2010
;184
(3
):930
–7
.4.
Gershman
B
, Dahl
DM
, Olumi
AF
, Young
RH
, McDougal
WS
, Wu
CL
. Smaller prostate gland size and older age predict Gleason score upgrading
. Urol Oncol
. 2013
;31
(7
):1033
–7
.5.
Harris
MR
, Harding
EJ
, Bates
TS
, Speakman
MJ
. Gland volume in the assessment of prostatic disease: does size matter
. BJU Int
. 2007
;100
(3
):506
–8
.6.
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
.7.
Paterson
NR
, Lavallée
LT
, Nguyen
LN
, Witiuk
K
, Ross
J
, Mallick
R
. Prostate volume estimations using magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound compared to radical prostatectomy specimens
. Can Urol Assoc J
. 2016
10
7–8
264
8
.8.
Mazaheri
Y
, Goldman
DA
, Di Paolo
PL
, Akin
O
, Hricak
H
. Comparison of prostate volume measured by endorectal coil MRI to prostate specimen volume and mass after radical prostatectomy
. Acad Radiol
. 2015
;22
(5
):556
–62
.9.
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
.10.
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
5
W720
9
.11.
Haas
M
, Günzel
K
, Miller
K
, Hamm
B
, Cash
H
, Asbach
P
. Is the ellipsoid formula the new standard for 3-tesla MRI prostate volume calculation without endorectal coil
. Urol Int
. 2017
;98
(1
):49
–53
.12.
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
.13.
Varma
M
, Morgan
JM
. The weight of the prostate gland is an excellent surrogate for gland volume
. Histopathology
. 2010
;57
(1
):55
–8
.14.
Hong
MK
, Yao
HH
, Rzetelski-West
K
, Namdarian
B
, Pedersen
J
, Peters
JS
. Prostate weight is the preferred measure of prostate size in radical prostatectomy cohorts
. BJU Int
. 2012
109
Suppl 3
57
63
.15.
Wu
S
, Feldman
AS
, Kim
MM
, Lin
SX
, Cornejo
KM
, Harisinghani
MG
. Gleason grade group concordance between systematic template combining magnetic resonance imaging fusion targeted biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens: a comparison of transperineal and transrectal approaches
. Urology
. 2023
;175
:151
–6
.16.
Turkbey
B
, Rosenkrantz
AB
, Haider
MA
, Padhani
AR
, Villeirs
G
, Macura
KJ
. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2
. Eur Urol
. 2019
;76
(3
):340
–51
.17.
Bulman
JC
, Toth
R
, Patel
AD
, Bloch
BN
, McMahon
CJ
, Ngo
L
. Automated computer-derived prostate volumes from MR imaging data: comparison with radiologist-derived MR imaging and pathologic specimen volumes
. Radiology
. 2012
;262
(1
):144
–51
.18.
Humphrey
PA
, Moch
H
, Cubilla
AL
, Ulbright
TM
, Reuter
VE
. The 2016 WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs-Part B: prostate and bladder tumours
. Eur Urol
. 2016
;70
(1
):106
–19
.19.
Chung
MS
, Lee
SH
, Lee
DH
, Chung
BH
. Is small prostate volume a predictor of Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy
. Yonsei Med J
. 2013
;54
(4
):902
–6
.20.
Jeong
CW
, Park
HK
, Hong
SK
, Byun
SS
, Lee
HJ
, Lee
SE
. Comparison of prostate volume measured by transrectal ultrasonography and MRI with the actual prostate volume measured after radical prostatectomy
. Urol Int
. 2008
;81
(2
):179
–85
.21.
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
.22.
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
–8
.23.
Sajadi
KP
, Terris
MK
, Hamilton
RJ
, Cullen
J
, Amling
CL
, Kane
CJ
. Body mass index, prostate weight and transrectal ultrasound prostate volume accuracy
. J Urol
. 2007
178
3 Pt 1
990
5
.24.
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
(8
):846
–53
.25.
Gok
B
, Hajiyev
E
, Hamidi
N
, Koc
E
, Asil
E
, Canda
AE
. Which is the best radiological imaging method for predicting actual prostate weight
. Andrologia
. 2020
;52
(10
):e13770
.26.
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
(3
):229
–33
.27.
Habes
M
, Bahr
J
, Schiller
T
, Kühn
JP
, Hoppe
L
, Burchardt
M
. New technique for prostate volume assessment
. World J Urol
. 2014
;32
(6
):1559
–64
.28.
Rahmouni
A
, Yang
A
, Tempany
CM
, Frenkel
T
, Epstein
J
, Walsh
P
. Accuracy of in-vivo assessment of prostatic volume by MRI and transrectal ultrasonography
. J Comput Assist Tomogr
. 1992
;16
(6
):935
–40
.29.
Jia
G
, Baudendistel
KT
, von Tengg-Kobligk
H
, Heverhagen
JT
, Polzer
H
, Henry
H
. Assessing prostate volume by magnetic resonance imaging: a comparison of different measurement approaches for organ volume analysis
. Invest Radiol
. 2005
;40
(4
):243
–8
.30.
Nathan
MS
, Seenivasagam
K
, Mei
Q
, Wickham
JE
, Miller
RA
. Transrectal ultrasonography: why are estimates of prostate volume and dimension so inaccurate
. Br J Urol
. 1996
;77
(3
):401
–7
.31.
MacMahon
PJ
, Kennedy
AM
, Murphy
DT
, Maher
M
, McNicholas
MM
. Modified prostate volume algorithm improves transrectal US volume estimation in men presenting for prostate brachytherapy
. Radiology
. 2009
;250
(1
):273
–80
.32.
Ghafoor
S
, Becker
AS
, Woo
S
, Causa Andrieu
PI
, Stocker
D
, Gangai
N
. Comparison of PI-rads versions 2.0 and 2.1 for MRI-based calculation of the prostate volume
. Acad Radiol
. 2021
;28
(11
):1548
–56
.33.
Dahl
DM
, Kim
MM
, Wu
S
, Lin
SX
, Crotty
RK
, Cornejo
KM
. Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer by transperineal multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted prostate biopsy in smaller prostates
. Urol Oncol
. 2022
40
10
451 e9
e14
.© 2023 S. Karger AG, Basel
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.
2023
You do not currently have access to this content.
