Accuracy of ultrasound in estimation of prostate weight: comparison of urologists and radiologists.
ABSTRACT Measurements of prostate size are obtained to contribute in the diagnosis and follow up of patients with a variety of diseases. Since its introduction, transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) of the prostate has become the most common method for assessment of prostate volumes. Ultrasonography, in general, has been associated with concerns of operator dependent variability. Herein, we analyze the accuracy of urologists and radiologists performing TRUS.
The accuracy of preoperative TRUS prostate volume estimation was evaluated by comparing it to gross specimen prostate weight following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) performed from August 2004 to March 2008 in Mayo Clinic Arizona. A total of 800 RARPs were evaluated retrospectively with 302 patients having a prostate volume measurement with TRUS at our institution followed by RARP being performed within 30 days. The TRUS measurements were divided into two groups: those TRUS measurements performed by urologists (group 1), and those performed by radiologists (group 2). The accuracy of the two groups were compared using a Pearson correlation analysis.
The estimated weight by TRUS in the total cohort of patients correlated with the pathological specimen weight at 0.802 with a standard error of 0.90. Group 1 performed a total of 114 ultrasounds with a correlation of 0.835 and a standard error of 1.27. Group 2 performed a total of 188 with a correlation of 0.786 and a standard error of 0.88.
Urologists and radiologists are both consistently within 17%-22% of the estimated prostate specimen weight. Urologists appeared to have a slightly higher accuracy in estimation but a higher range of error for the whole group when compared to radiologists. Transrectal ultrasonography is a reliable technique to estimate prostate weight and accuracy to within 20% of the pathological weight. Urologists and radiologists are essentially equally proficient in estimating prostate weight with TRUS. These findings are particularly important with respect to specialty certification and competency/proficiency evaluation, as health care increasingly moves towards outcomes based reimbursement.
SourceAvailable from: uscap.org
Article: Update on prostate pathology[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This update on prostate pathology is very timely, as we celebrate the 20 anniversary of our great society, the International Society of Urological Pathologists (ISUP). Most of the key advances in this field over the past two decades have been made by several distinguished members of our society, as will be demonstrated herein. I am therefore indeed honored and privileged to be given the opportunity to present this paper. I will start with a brief historical perspective prior to delving into the update on prostate pathology over the past two decades and beyond. The topics discussed in this update will be somewhat limited, but will include The Gleason grading system; handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens; variants of prostatic adenocarcinoma; treatment effect on the prostate; other primary and secondary tumours involving the prostate, and biomarkers of prostate cancer.Pathology 07/2012; 44(5):391-406. DOI:10.1097/PAT.0b013e32835657cf · 2.62 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Purpose To investigate the relationship between prostate volume and the increased risk for being diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) in men with slowly increasing prostate specific antigen (PSA). Materials and Methods A cohort of 1035 men who visited our hospital's health promotion center and were checked for serum PSA levels more than two times between January 2001 and November 2011 were included. Among them, 116 patients had a change in PSA levels from less than 4 ng/mL to more than 4 ng/mL and underwent transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. Median age was 55.9 years and 26 (22.4%) had PCa. We compared the initial PSA level, the last PSA level, age, prostate volume, PSA density (PSAD), PSA velocity, and follow-up period between men with and without PCa. The mean follow-up period was 83.7 months. Results Significant predictive factors for the detection of prostate cancer identified by univariate analysis were prostate volume, follow-up period and PSAD. In the multivariate analysis, prostate volume (p<0.001, odds ratio: 0.890) was the most significant factor for the detection of prostate cancer. In the receiver operator characteristic curve of prostate volume, area under curve was 0.724. At the cut-off value of 28.8 mL for prostate volume, the sensitivity and specificity were 61.1% and 73.1% respectively. Conclusion In men with PSA values more than 4 ng/mL during the follow-up period, a small prostate volume was the most important factor in early detection of prostate cancer.Yonsei medical journal 09/2013; 54(5):1202-6. DOI:10.3349/ymj.2013.54.5.1202 · 1.26 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE To report the accuracy of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) to measure prostate size before robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy using the prolate ellipsoid formula and its correlation to the weight of the postoperative prostate specimen, for different prostate size groups. METHODS Preoperative prostate size estimated by TRUS and the weight of postoperative prostate specimens were collected from 440 men undergoing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Patients were grouped according to preoperative prostate size: <30, 30-60, 60-80, and >= 80 g. To evaluate accuracy, the mean absolute percentage of error was used. The mean percentage of error was used to indicate whether the estimation of TRUS had a tendency to overestimate or underestimate prostate size. The correlation between both measurements was analyzed for each size group. RESULTS Accuracy of TRUS estimation was associated with increased prostate size. TRUS estimation was more accurate for larger prostates. The mean absolute percentage of error of each group was 38.64% (<30 g), 21.33% (30-60 g), 13.23% (60-80 g), and 14.96% (>= 80 g). Correlation followed a similar size-dependent trend, with a stronger r coefficient for larger prostates: 0.174 (<30 g), 0.327 (30-60 g), 0.457 (60-80 g), and 0.839 (>= 80 g). Interestingly, smaller prostates were underestimated, whereas larger glands (>= 80 g) had a tendency to be overestimated by TRUS. CONCLUSION This study demonstrates that the accuracy of the prolate ellipsoid formula for TRUS varies according to prostate size. Although this formula is fairly accurate for assessing larger prostates, it shows some limitations for smaller prostates. This must be taken into account when evaluating treatment modalities such as transurethral incision of the prostate and brachytherapy. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc.Urology 07/2014; 84(1):169-74. DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2014.02.022 · 2.13 Impact Factor