Metin KILIÇ, Ahmet Tunç ÖZDEMİR, Serkan ALTINOVA, Ali Fuat ATMACA, Abdullah Erdem CANDA, Mevlana Derya BALBAY

What is the best radiological method to predict the actual weight of the prostate?

We compared the weight of the prostate specimen extracted after radical prostatectomy with preoperatively estimated weights of the prostate by different imaging techniques. Materials and methods: Prostate weights were estimated by transabdominal ultrasonography (TAUS), transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS), and computed tomography (CT) preoperatively before radical prostatectomy. Prostatectomy specimens were weighed postoperatively and the actual prostate weights were calculated. Statistical analyses were done using 95% confidence intervals with repeated measurement analysis of variance and intraclass correlation coefficients. Results: Of the 163 patients enrolled in the study, the mean age was 64.2 ± 6.4 (range: 45 to 76) years. The mean postoperative prostate weight was 54.7 ± 27.9 g. Preoperative mean prostate volumes calculated by TAUS, TRUS, and CT were 50.2 ± 24.1, 50.7 ± 24.6, and 62.7 ± 28.2 mL, respectively (P < 0.001). The actual prostate weight measured using an electronic scale was correlated with the estimated prostate weight in each of 3 methods, the best of which was that of TRUS. Conclusion: The actual prostate weight is best estimated by measurements done with TRUS. However, clinicians should consider that some errors and deviations may occur with these imaging techniques.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Key words: Prostate, prostate volume, ultrasound, transrectal ultrasonography, computed tomography

What is the best radiological method to predict the actual weight of the prostate?

Keywords:

Key words: Prostate, prostate volume, ultrasound, transrectal ultrasonography, computed tomography,

PDF

___

Fong YK, Milani S, Djavan B. Natural history and clinical predictors of clinical progression in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Cur Opin Urol 2005; 15: 35–8.
Akpolat N, Büyük Y, Uzun İ, Geçit İ, Kurnaz G. Prevalence of latent prostate cancer and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in İstanbul, Turkey: an autopsy study. Turk J Med Sci 2012; 42: 449–56.
Gülkesen HK, Köksal İT, Özdem S, Saka O. Prediction of prostate cancer using decision tree algorithm. Turk J Med Sci 2010; 40: 681–6.
Roehrborn CG, McConnell J, Bonilla J, Rosenblatt S, Hudson PB, Malek GH, Schellhammer PF, Bruskewitz R, Matsumoto AM, Harrison LH et al. Serum prostate specific antigen is a strong predictor of future prostate growth in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. PROSCAR long-term efficacy and safety study. J Urol 2000; 163: 13–20.
Hoffelt SC, Marshall LM, Garzotto M, Hung A, Holland J, Beer TM. A comparison of CT scan to transrectal ultrasoundmeasured prostate volume in untreated prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 57: 29–32.
Uğurlu Ö, Çetinkaya M, Özden C, Öztekin ÇV, Akdemir AÖ, Memiş A, Yarış M. An abnormal digital rectal examination is an independent predictor of high radical prostatectomy Gleason’s score ( ≥7) in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Turk J Med Sci 2009; 39: 755–60.
Strom KH, Gu X, Spaliviero M, Wong C. The effects of 5α-reductase inhibition on benign prostatic hyperplasia treated by photoselective vaporization prostatectomy with the 120 Watt GreenLight HPS laser system. J Am Coll Surg 2011; 212: 244–50.
Watanabe H, Igari D, Tanahashi Y, Harada K, Saito M. Measurements of size and weight of the prostate by means of transrectal ultrasonotomography. Tohoku J Exp Med 1974; 114: 277–85.
Nogueira L, Corradi R, Eastham JA. Prostatic specific antigen for prostate cancer detection. Int Braz J Urol 2009; 35: 521–9.
Ochiai A, Troncoso P, Chen ME. The relationship between tumor volume and the number of positive cores in men undergoing multisite extended biopsy: implication for expectant management. J Urol 2005; 174: 2164–8.
Canda AE, Atmaca AF, Akbulut Z, Asil E, Kılıç M, İsgören AE, Balbay MD. Results of robotic radical prostatectomy in the hands of surgeons without previous laparoscopic radical prostatectomy experience. Turk J Med Sci 2012; 42 (Sup. 1): 1338–46.
Mouraviev V, Nosnik I, Sun L. Financial comparative analysis of minimally invasive surgery to open surgery for localized prostate cancer: a single-institution experience. Urology 2007; 69: 311–4.
Pinkawa M. External beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Panminerva Med 2010; 52: 195–207.
Ahmed HU, Zacharakis E, Dudderidge T. High-intensityfocused ultrasound in the treatment of primary prostate cancer: the first UK series. Br J Cancer 2009; 101: 19–26.
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: 501–3.
Sajadi KP, Terris MK, Hamilton RJ, Cullen J, Amling CL, Kane CJ, Presti JC Jr, Aronson WJ, Freedland SJ. Body mass index, prostate weight and transrectal ultrasound prostate volume accuracy. J Urol 2007; 178: 990–5.
Kälkner KM, Kubicek G, Nilsson J, Lundell M, Levitt S, Nilsson S. Prostate volume determination: differential volume measurements comparing CT and TRUS. Radiother Oncol 2006; 81: 179–83.
Kim SH, Kim SH. Correlations between the various methods of estimating prostate volume: transabdominal, transrectal, and three-dimensional US. Korean J Radiol 2008; 9: 134–9.
Huang Foen Chung JW, de Vries SH, Raaijmakers R, Postma R, Bosch JL, van Mastrigt R. Prostate volume ultrasonography: the influence of transabdominal versus transrectal approach, device type and operator. Eur Urol 2004; 46: 352–6.