Prostate volume in multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) is of clinical importance. For 3-Tesla mpMRI without endorectal coil, there is no distinctive standard for volume calculation. We tested the accuracy of the ellipsoid formula with planimetric volume measurements as reference and investigated the correlation of gland volume and cancer detection rate on MRI/ultrasound (MRI/US) fusion-guided biopsy. One hundred forty-three patients with findings on 3-Tesla mpMRI suspicious of cancer and subsequent MRI/US fusion-guided targeted biopsy and additional systematic biopsy were analyzed. T2-weighted images were used for measuring the prostate diameters and for planimetric volume measurement by a segmentation software. Planimetric and calculated prostate volumes were compared with clinical data. The median prostate volume was 48.1 ml (interquartile range (IQR) 36.9-62.1 ml). Volume calculated by the ellipsoid formula showed a strong concordance with planimetric volume, with a tendency to underestimate prostate volume (median volume 43.1 ml (IQR 31.2-58.8 ml); r = 0.903, p < 0.001). There was a moderate, significant inverse correlation of prostate volume to a positive biopsy result (r = -0.24, p = 0.004). The ellipsoid formula gives sufficient approximation of prostate volume on 3-Tesla mpMRI without endorectal coil. It allows a fast, valid volume calculation in prostate MRI datasets.

Keywords:
Prostate MRI, Multiparametric MRI, Volumetry, Prostate cancer, Prostate biopsy
1.
Peng Y, Shen D, Liao S, Turkbey B, Rais-Bahrami S, Wood B, Karademir I, Antic T, Yousef A, Jiang Y, Pinto PA, Choyke PL, Oto A: MRI-based prostate volume-adjusted prostate-specific antigen in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015;42:1733-1739.
2.
Rosenkrantz AB, Lepor H, Huang WC, Taneja SS: Practical barriers to obtaining pre-biopsy prostate MRI: assessment in over 1,500 consecutive men undergoing prostate biopsy in a single urologic practice. Urol Int 2016;97:247-248.
3.
Arumainayagam N, Ahmed HU, Moore CM, Freeman A, Allen C, Sohaib SA, Kirkham A, van der Meulen J, Emberton M: Multiparametric MR imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a validation cohort study with transperineal template prostate mapping as the reference standard. Radiology 2013;268:761-769.
4.
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, Rouviere O, Logager V, Fütterer JJ: ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746-757.
5.
Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S, Thoeny HC, Tempany CM, Shtern F, Padhani AR, Margolis D, Macura KJ, Haider MA, Cornud F, Choyke PL: Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur Urol 2016;69:41-49.
6.
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;81:179-185.
7.
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;22:556-562.
8.
Cash H, Maxeiner A, Stephan C, Fischer T, Durmus T, Holzmann J, Asbach P, Haas M, Hinz S, Neymeyer J, Miller K, Günzel K, Kempkensteffen C: The detection of significant prostate cancer is correlated with the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) in MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. World J Urol 2016;34:525-532.
9.
PI-RADS version 2. American College of Radiology, 2014.
10.
Rodriguez E Jr, Skarecky D, Narula N, Ahlering TE: Prostate volume estimation using the ellipsoid formula consistently underestimates actual gland size. J Urol 2008;179:501-503.
11.
Porcaro AB, Novella G, Cacciamani G, De Marchi D, Corsi P, De Luyk N, Bizzotto L, Processali T, Cerasuolo M, Tamanini I, Cerruto MA, Brunelli M, Siracusano S, Artibani W: Prostate volume index associates with a decreased risk of prostate cancer: results of a large cohort of patients elected to a first biopsy set. Urol Int 2016, Epub ahead of print.
12.
de Gorski A, Rouprêt M, Peyronnet B, Le Cossec C, Granger B, Comperat E, Cussenot O, Renard-Penna R, Mozer P: Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion targeted biopsies to diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer in enlarged compared to smaller prostates. J Urol 2015;194:669-673.
13.
Walton Diaz A, Hoang AN, Turkbey B, Hong CW, Truong H, Sterling T, Rais-Bahrami S, Siddiqui MM, Stamatakis L, Vourganti S, Nix J, Logan J, Harris C, Weintraub M, Chua C, Merino MJ, Choyke P, Wood BJ, Pinto PA: Can magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy improve cancer detection in enlarged prostates? J Urol 2013;190:2020-2025.
14.
Cash H, Günzel K, Maxeiner A, Stephan C, Fischer T, Durmus T, Miller K, Asbach P, Haas M, Kempkensteffen C: Prostate cancer detection on transrectal ultrasonography-guided random biopsy despite negative real-time magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion-guided targeted biopsy: reasons for targeted biopsy failure. BJU Int 2016;118:35-43.
15.
Simpkin CJ, Morgan VA, Giles SL, Riches SF, Parker C, deSouza NM: Relationship between T2 relaxation and apparent diffusion coefficient in malignant and non-malignant prostate regions and the effect of peripheral zone fractional volume. Br J Radiol 2013;86:20120469.
16.
Ko JS, Landis P, Carter HB, Partin AW: Effect of intra-observer variation in prostate volume measurement on prostate-specific antigen density calculations among prostate cancer active surveillance participants. BJU Int 2011;108:1739-1742.
17.
Nunez-Nateras R, Andrews JR, Martin GL, Andrews PE, Humphreys MR, Ferrigni RG, Eversman WG, Castle EP: Accuracy of ultrasound in estimation of prostate weight: comparison of urologists and radiologists. Can J Urol 2010;17:4985-4988.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
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.
You do not currently have access to this content.