Cargando…
Variability in MRI vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: a case series
BACKGROUND: Prostate volume can affect whether patients qualify for brachytherapy (desired size ≥20 mL and ≤60 mL) and/or active surveillance (desired PSA density ≤0.15 for very low risk disease). This study examines variability in prostate volume measurements depending on imaging modality used (ult...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4261899/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25205146 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-9-200 |
_version_ | 1782348350404689920 |
---|---|
author | Murciano-Goroff, Yonina R Wolfsberger, Luciant D Parekh, Arti Fennessy, Fiona M Tuncali, Kemal Orio, Peter F Niedermayr, Thomas R Suh, W Warren Devlin, Phillip M Tempany, Clare Mary C Sugar, Emily H Neubauer O’Farrell, Desmond A Steele, Graeme O’Leary, Michael Buzurovic, Ivan Damato, Antonio L Cormack, Robert A Fedorov, Andriy Y Nguyen, Paul L |
author_facet | Murciano-Goroff, Yonina R Wolfsberger, Luciant D Parekh, Arti Fennessy, Fiona M Tuncali, Kemal Orio, Peter F Niedermayr, Thomas R Suh, W Warren Devlin, Phillip M Tempany, Clare Mary C Sugar, Emily H Neubauer O’Farrell, Desmond A Steele, Graeme O’Leary, Michael Buzurovic, Ivan Damato, Antonio L Cormack, Robert A Fedorov, Andriy Y Nguyen, Paul L |
author_sort | Murciano-Goroff, Yonina R |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Prostate volume can affect whether patients qualify for brachytherapy (desired size ≥20 mL and ≤60 mL) and/or active surveillance (desired PSA density ≤0.15 for very low risk disease). This study examines variability in prostate volume measurements depending on imaging modality used (ultrasound versus MRI) and volume calculation technique (contouring versus ellipsoid) and quantifies the impact of this variability on treatment recommendations for men with favorable-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: We examined 70 patients who presented consecutively for consideration of brachytherapy for favorable-risk prostate cancer who had volume estimates by three methods: contoured axial ultrasound slices, ultrasound ellipsoid (height × width × length × 0.523) calculation, and endorectal coil MRI (erMRI) ellipsoid calculation. RESULTS: Average gland size by the contoured ultrasound, ellipsoid ultrasound, and erMRI methods were 33.99, 37.16, and 39.62 mLs, respectively. All pairwise comparisons between methods were statistically significant (all p < 0.015). Of the 66 patients who volumetrically qualified for brachytherapy on ellipsoid ultrasound measures, 22 (33.33%) did not qualify on ellipsoid erMRI or contoured ultrasound measures. 38 patients (54.28%) had PSA density ≤0.15 ng/dl as calculated using ellipsoid ultrasound volumes, compared to 34 (48.57%) and 38 patients (54.28%) using contoured ultrasound and ellipsoid erMRI volumes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The ultrasound ellipsoid and erMRI ellipsoid methods appeared to overestimate ultrasound contoured volume by an average of 9.34% and 16.57% respectively. 33.33% of those who qualified for brachytherapy based on ellipsoid ultrasound volume would be disqualified based on ultrasound contoured and/or erMRI ellipsoid volume. As treatment recommendations increasingly rely on estimates of prostate size, clinicians must consider method of volume estimation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4261899 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-42618992014-12-10 Variability in MRI vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: a case series Murciano-Goroff, Yonina R Wolfsberger, Luciant D Parekh, Arti Fennessy, Fiona M Tuncali, Kemal Orio, Peter F Niedermayr, Thomas R Suh, W Warren Devlin, Phillip M Tempany, Clare Mary C Sugar, Emily H Neubauer O’Farrell, Desmond A Steele, Graeme O’Leary, Michael Buzurovic, Ivan Damato, Antonio L Cormack, Robert A Fedorov, Andriy Y Nguyen, Paul L Radiat Oncol Research BACKGROUND: Prostate volume can affect whether patients qualify for brachytherapy (desired size ≥20 mL and ≤60 mL) and/or active surveillance (desired PSA density ≤0.15 for very low risk disease). This study examines variability in prostate volume measurements depending on imaging modality used (ultrasound versus MRI) and volume calculation technique (contouring versus ellipsoid) and quantifies the impact of this variability on treatment recommendations for men with favorable-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: We examined 70 patients who presented consecutively for consideration of brachytherapy for favorable-risk prostate cancer who had volume estimates by three methods: contoured axial ultrasound slices, ultrasound ellipsoid (height × width × length × 0.523) calculation, and endorectal coil MRI (erMRI) ellipsoid calculation. RESULTS: Average gland size by the contoured ultrasound, ellipsoid ultrasound, and erMRI methods were 33.99, 37.16, and 39.62 mLs, respectively. All pairwise comparisons between methods were statistically significant (all p < 0.015). Of the 66 patients who volumetrically qualified for brachytherapy on ellipsoid ultrasound measures, 22 (33.33%) did not qualify on ellipsoid erMRI or contoured ultrasound measures. 38 patients (54.28%) had PSA density ≤0.15 ng/dl as calculated using ellipsoid ultrasound volumes, compared to 34 (48.57%) and 38 patients (54.28%) using contoured ultrasound and ellipsoid erMRI volumes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The ultrasound ellipsoid and erMRI ellipsoid methods appeared to overestimate ultrasound contoured volume by an average of 9.34% and 16.57% respectively. 33.33% of those who qualified for brachytherapy based on ellipsoid ultrasound volume would be disqualified based on ultrasound contoured and/or erMRI ellipsoid volume. As treatment recommendations increasingly rely on estimates of prostate size, clinicians must consider method of volume estimation. BioMed Central 2014-09-09 /pmc/articles/PMC4261899/ /pubmed/25205146 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-9-200 Text en © Murciano-Goroff et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Murciano-Goroff, Yonina R Wolfsberger, Luciant D Parekh, Arti Fennessy, Fiona M Tuncali, Kemal Orio, Peter F Niedermayr, Thomas R Suh, W Warren Devlin, Phillip M Tempany, Clare Mary C Sugar, Emily H Neubauer O’Farrell, Desmond A Steele, Graeme O’Leary, Michael Buzurovic, Ivan Damato, Antonio L Cormack, Robert A Fedorov, Andriy Y Nguyen, Paul L Variability in MRI vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: a case series |
title | Variability in MRI vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: a case series |
title_full | Variability in MRI vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: a case series |
title_fullStr | Variability in MRI vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: a case series |
title_full_unstemmed | Variability in MRI vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: a case series |
title_short | Variability in MRI vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: a case series |
title_sort | variability in mri vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: a case series |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4261899/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25205146 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-9-200 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT murcianogoroffyoninar variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries AT wolfsbergerluciantd variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries AT parekharti variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries AT fennessyfionam variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries AT tuncalikemal variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries AT oriopeterf variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries AT niedermayrthomasr variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries AT suhwwarren variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries AT devlinphillipm variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries AT tempanyclaremaryc variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries AT sugaremilyhneubauer variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries AT ofarrelldesmonda variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries AT steelegraeme variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries AT olearymichael variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries AT buzurovicivan variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries AT damatoantoniol variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries AT cormackroberta variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries AT fedorovandriyy variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries AT nguyenpaull variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries |