Evaluation of prostate volume in mpMRI: comparison of the recommendations of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.
Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 27 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 15 - 19 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.5152/dir.2020.20023 İndeks Tarihi: 27-06-2021
Evaluation of prostate volume in mpMRI: comparison of the recommendations of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.
Öz: PURPOSEWe aimed to evaluate the prostate volumes calculated as recommended in the PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.1 guidelines, intraobserver and interobserver variability, and the agreement between the two measurement methods.METHODSProstate mpMRI examinations of 114 patients were evaluated retrospectively. T2-weighted sequences in the axial and sagittal planes were used for the measurement of the prostate volume. The measurements were performed by two independent observers as recommended in the PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.1 guidelines. Both observers conducted the measurements twice and the average values were obtained. In order to prevent bias, the observers carried out measurements at one-week intervals. In order to assess intraobserver variability, observers repeated the measurements again at one-week intervals. The prostate volume was calculated using the ellipsoid formula (W×H×L×0.52).RESULTSIntraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) revealed almost perfect agreement between the first and second observers for the measurements according to both PI-RADS v2 (0.93) and PI-RADS v2.1 (0.96) guidelines. The measurements were repeated by both observers. According to the ICC values, there was excellent agreement between the first and second measurements with respect to both PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.1 for first (0.94 and 0.96, respectively) and second observer (0.94 and 0.97, respectively). For both observers, the differences had a random, homogeneous distribution, and there was no clear relationship between the differences and mean values.CONCLUSIONThe ellipsoid formula is a reliable method for rapid assessment of prostate volume, with excellent intra- and interobserver agreement and no need for expert training. For the height measurement, the recommendations of the PIRADS v2.1 guideline seem to provide more consistently reproducible results.
Anahtar Kelime: Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
- 1. Bezinque A, Moriarity A, Farrell C, Peabody H, Noyes SL, Lane BR. Determination of prostate volume: a comparison of contemporary methods. Acad Radiol 2018; 25:1582–1587. [Crossref]
- 2. 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; 98:49–53. [Crossref]
- 3. 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. [Crossref]
- 4. 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; 78:323–327. [Crossref]
- 5. Jia G, Baudendistel KT, von Tengg-Kobligk H, et al. Assessing prostate volume by magnetic resonance imaging: a comparison of different measurement approaches for organ volume analysis. Invest Radiol 2005; 40:243–248. [Crossref]
- 6. Kucway R, Vicini F, Huang R, Stromberg J, Gonzalez J, Martinez A. Prostate volume reduction with androgen deprivation therapy before interstitial brachytherapy. J Urol 2002; 167:2443–2447. [Crossref]
- 7. Al-Qaisieh B, Brearley E, St Clair S, Flynn A. A study of a pretreatment method to predict the number of I-125 seeds required for prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 65:304–307. [Crossref]
- 8. Averbeck MA, Marcelissen T, Anding R, Rahnama'i MS, Sahai A, Tubaro A. How can we prevent postprostatectomy urinary incontinence by patient selection, and by preoperative, peroperative, and postoperative measures? International Consultation on Incontinence-Research Society 2018. Neurourol Urodyn 2019; 38:119–126. [Crossref]
- 9. Park SB, Kim JK, Choi SH, Noh HN, Ji EK, Cho KS. Prostate volume measurement by TRUS using heights obtained by transaxial and midsagittal scanning: comparison with specimen volume following radical prostatectomy. Korean J Radiol 2000; 1:110–113. [Crossref]
- 10. 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; 20:229–233. [Crossref]
- 11. Wasserman NF. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: a review and ultrasound classification. Radiol Clin North Am 2006; 44:689–710. [Crossref]
- 12. Tokgöz Ö, Tokgöz H, Ünal I, et al. Diagnostic values of detrusor wall thickness, postvoid residual urine, and prostate volume to evaluate lower urinary tract symptoms in men. Diagn Interv Radiol 2012; 18:277–281. [Crossref]
- 13. 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; 250:273–280. [Crossref]
- 14. Roehrborn CG, Girman CJ, Rhodes T, et al. Correlation between prostate size estimated by digital rectal examination and measured by transrectal ultrasound. Urology 1997; 49:548–557. [Crossref]
- 15. Tewari A, Indudhara R, Shinohara K, et al. Comparison of transrectal ultrasound prostatic volume estimation with magnetic resonance imaging volume estimation and surgical specimen weight in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Clin Ultrasound 1996; 24:169–174. [Crossref]
- 16. 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. [Crossref]
- 17. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016; 69:16–40. [Crossref]
- 18. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol. 2019; 76:340–351. [Crossref]
- 19. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22:746–757. [Crossref]
- 20. Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S, et al. Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur Urol 2016; 69:41–49. [Crossref]
- 21. 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; 10:846–853. [Crossref]
- 22. Terris MK, Stamey TA. Determination of prostate volume by transrectal ultrasound. J Urol 1991; 145:984–987. [Crossref]
| APA | Gündoğdu e, Emekli E (2021). Evaluation of prostate volume in mpMRI: comparison of the recommendations of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.. , 15 - 19. 10.5152/dir.2020.20023 |
| Chicago | Gündoğdu elif,Emekli Emre Evaluation of prostate volume in mpMRI: comparison of the recommendations of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.. (2021): 15 - 19. 10.5152/dir.2020.20023 |
| MLA | Gündoğdu elif,Emekli Emre Evaluation of prostate volume in mpMRI: comparison of the recommendations of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.. , 2021, ss.15 - 19. 10.5152/dir.2020.20023 |
| AMA | Gündoğdu e,Emekli E Evaluation of prostate volume in mpMRI: comparison of the recommendations of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.. . 2021; 15 - 19. 10.5152/dir.2020.20023 |
| Vancouver | Gündoğdu e,Emekli E Evaluation of prostate volume in mpMRI: comparison of the recommendations of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.. . 2021; 15 - 19. 10.5152/dir.2020.20023 |
| IEEE | Gündoğdu e,Emekli E "Evaluation of prostate volume in mpMRI: comparison of the recommendations of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.." , ss.15 - 19, 2021. 10.5152/dir.2020.20023 |
| ISNAD | Gündoğdu, elif - Emekli, Emre. "Evaluation of prostate volume in mpMRI: comparison of the recommendations of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.". (2021), 15-19. https://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2020.20023 |
| APA | Gündoğdu e, Emekli E (2021). Evaluation of prostate volume in mpMRI: comparison of the recommendations of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, 27(1), 15 - 19. 10.5152/dir.2020.20023 |
| Chicago | Gündoğdu elif,Emekli Emre Evaluation of prostate volume in mpMRI: comparison of the recommendations of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology 27, no.1 (2021): 15 - 19. 10.5152/dir.2020.20023 |
| MLA | Gündoğdu elif,Emekli Emre Evaluation of prostate volume in mpMRI: comparison of the recommendations of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, vol.27, no.1, 2021, ss.15 - 19. 10.5152/dir.2020.20023 |
| AMA | Gündoğdu e,Emekli E Evaluation of prostate volume in mpMRI: comparison of the recommendations of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology. 2021; 27(1): 15 - 19. 10.5152/dir.2020.20023 |
| Vancouver | Gündoğdu e,Emekli E Evaluation of prostate volume in mpMRI: comparison of the recommendations of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology. 2021; 27(1): 15 - 19. 10.5152/dir.2020.20023 |
| IEEE | Gündoğdu e,Emekli E "Evaluation of prostate volume in mpMRI: comparison of the recommendations of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.." Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, 27, ss.15 - 19, 2021. 10.5152/dir.2020.20023 |
| ISNAD | Gündoğdu, elif - Emekli, Emre. "Evaluation of prostate volume in mpMRI: comparison of the recommendations of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.". Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology 27/1 (2021), 15-19. https://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2020.20023 |
