Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Transperineal Ultrasound for Measurement of Prostate Volume: Validation Against Transrectal Ultrasound

2007; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 178; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.163

1527-3792

Kaye A. Griffiths, Lam P Ly, Bo Jin, Lewis Chan, David J. Handelsman,

Urinary Bladder and Prostate Research

No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult urology1 Oct 2007Transperineal Ultrasound for Measurement of Prostate Volume: Validation Against Transrectal Ultrasound Kaye A. Griffiths, Lam P. Ly, Bo Jin, Lewis Chan, and David J. Handelsman Kaye A. GriffithsKaye A. Griffiths Department of Andrology, Concord Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia ANZAC Research Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia More articles by this author , Lam P. LyLam P. Ly Department of Andrology, Concord Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia ANZAC Research Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia More articles by this author , Bo JinBo Jin Department of Andrology, Concord Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia More articles by this author , Lewis ChanLewis Chan Department of Urology, Concord Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia More articles by this author , and David J. HandelsmanDavid J. Handelsman Department of Andrology, Concord Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia ANZAC Research Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.163AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We evaluated the transperineal ultrasound method to measure total and central prostate volume compared with the standard transrectal ultrasound. Materials and Methods: Healthy men without prostate disease underwent transperineal and transrectal ultrasound at a single session to calculate total and central prostate volume by the ellipsoidal formula from maximal measured dimensions. Reproducibility within and between methods was evaluated by ICC, CV and Bland-Altman plots. Results: In 13 men measured on 3 occasions within 2 weeks transperineal and transrectal ultrasound had high within method (ICC 0.92 and 0.97, and CV 7.2% and 5.1%, respectively) and between method (ICC 0.98 and CV 5.4%) agreement. Agreement for central prostate volume was good but it was lower within method (ICC 0.74 and 0.73, and CV 20.5% and 20.3%, respectively) and between method (ICC 0.85 and CV 19.7%). Transperineal ultrasound bias was −2.7% for total and −8.9% for central prostate volume. Of 287 healthy men the methods highly correlated for total prostate volume in 245 (ICC 0.92, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.94) and for central prostate volume in 217 (ICC 0.87, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.90). Transperineal ultrasound had minimal bias for total prostate volume (−3.7%, mean −1.0 ml, 95% CI −1.7 to −0.2 ml) and no bias for central prostate volume (−3.0%, mean bias 0.10 ml, 95% CI –0.3 to 0.5 ml). Transperineal ultrasound was more acceptable but it had a higher technical failure rate for total and central prostate volume (13.6% vs 1.4% and 23.7% vs 3.5%, respectively). Conclusions: Transperineal ultrasound provides an accurate, less invasive and more acceptable alternative but with a higher technical failure rate than transrectal ultrasound, especially for central prostate volume. By trading off acceptability for the failure rate transperineal ultrasound may enhance the feasibility of valid studies requiring repeat prostate volume measurement in asymptomatic men. References 1 : Ethnicity and migration as determinants of human prostate size. J Clin Endocrinol Metab1999; 84: 3613. Google Scholar 2 : Growth and development during early manhood as determinants of prostate size in later life. J Clin Endocrinol Metab2005; 90: 6055. Google Scholar 3 : Transperineal ultrasound examination in the evaluation of prostatic size. Clin Radiol1991; 44: 383. Google Scholar 4 : Comparison of prostate size in university and Veterans Affairs Health Care System patients with negative prostate biopsies. Urology1998; 51: 412. Google Scholar 5 : Ultrasound evaluation of the prostate after abdominoperineal resection. J Urol1993; 150: 902. Link, Google Scholar 6 : Prostatic ultrasound in the patient without a rectum. Urology1994; 43: 722. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 7 : Transperineal sonography in anorectal disorders. Ultraschall Med2004; 25: 111. Google Scholar 8 : Prostatic tissue ablation by injection: a literature review. J Urol2004; 172: 20. Link, Google Scholar 9 : Interexaminer reliability of transrectal ultrasound for estimating prostate volume. J Urol2001; 166: 125. Link, Google Scholar 10 : Accuracy of in-vivo assessment of prostatic volume by MRI and transrectal ultrasonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr1992; 16: 935. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 11 : Prostate volume measurement by transrectal ultrasound and computed tomography before and after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2004; 60: 767. Google Scholar 12 : Transrectal ultrasonic volume determination of the prostate: a preoperative and postoperative study. J Urol1982; 127: 1115. Abstract, Google Scholar 13 : Ultrasonic determination of prostatic volume: a cadaver study. Urology1989; 34: 123. Google Scholar 14 : Parametric shape modeling using deformable superellipses for prostate segmentation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging2004; 23: 340. Google Scholar 15 : Intra- and inter-observer variability and reliability of prostate volume measurement via two-dimensional and three-dimensional ultrasound imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol1998; 24: 673. Google Scholar 16 : Transrectal ultrasonography in male subfertility patients: an intra- and interobserver study. Urol Res2001; 29: 57. Google Scholar 17 : Transrectal ultrasonic volumetry of the prostate: in vivo comparison of different methods. Prostate1996; 28: 107. Google Scholar 18 : Reproducibility and observer variability of transrectal ultrasound measurements of prostatic volume. Ultrasound Med Biol1995; 21: 1101. Google Scholar © 2007 by American Urological AssociationFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 178Issue 4October 2007Page: 1375-1380 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2007 by American Urological AssociationKeywordsultrasonographyprostatic hyperplasiaprostatemass screeningdiagnostic imagingAcknowledgmentsSue Wishart and Amanda Idan assisted with recruitment, Professors Ann Conway and Peter Liu provided support, and Dr. John Rogers and Jane Fonda provided input and comments on ultrasound methodology.MetricsAuthor Information Kaye A. Griffiths Department of Andrology, Concord Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia ANZAC Research Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia More articles by this author Lam P. Ly Department of Andrology, Concord Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia ANZAC Research Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia More articles by this author Bo Jin Department of Andrology, Concord Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia More articles by this author Lewis Chan Department of Urology, Concord Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia More articles by this author David J. Handelsman Department of Andrology, Concord Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia ANZAC Research Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...