Cargando…
Improving ultrasound-based prostate volume estimation
BACKGROUND: To define a new coefficient to be used in the formula (Volume = L x H x W x Coefficient) that better estimates prostate volume using dimensions of fresh prostates from patients who had transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) imaging prior to prostatectomy. METHODS: The prostate was obtained from 1...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6657110/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31340802 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-019-0492-2 |
_version_ | 1783438746710966272 |
---|---|
author | Aprikian, Saro Luz, Murilo Brimo, Fadi Scarlata, Eleonora Hamel, Lucie Cury, Fabio L. Tanguay, Simon Aprikian, Armen G. Kassouf, Wassim Chevalier, Simone |
author_facet | Aprikian, Saro Luz, Murilo Brimo, Fadi Scarlata, Eleonora Hamel, Lucie Cury, Fabio L. Tanguay, Simon Aprikian, Armen G. Kassouf, Wassim Chevalier, Simone |
author_sort | Aprikian, Saro |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: To define a new coefficient to be used in the formula (Volume = L x H x W x Coefficient) that better estimates prostate volume using dimensions of fresh prostates from patients who had transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) imaging prior to prostatectomy. METHODS: The prostate was obtained from 153 patients, weighed and measured to obtain length (L), height (H), and width (W). The density was determined by water displacement to calculate volume. TRUS data were retrieved from patient charts. Linear regression analyses were performed to compare various prostate volume formulas, including the commonly used ellipsoid formula and newly introduced bullet-shaped formula. RESULTS: By relating measured prostate volumes from fresh prostates to TRUS-estimated prostate volumes, 0.66 was the best fitting coefficient in the (L x H x W x Coefficient) equation. This newfound coefficient combined with outlier removal yielded a linear equation with an R(2) of 0.64, compared to 0.55 and 0.60, for the ellipsoid and bullet, respectively. By comparing each of the measured vs. estimated dimensions, we observed that the mean prostate height and length were overestimated by 11.1 and 10.8% using ultrasound (p < 0.05), respectively, while the mean width was similar (p > 0.05). Overall, the ellipsoid formula underestimates prostate volumes by 18%, compared to an overestimation of 4.6 and 5.7% for the bullet formula and the formula using our coefficient, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study defines, for the first time, a coefficient based on freshly resected prostates as a reference to estimate volumes by imaging. Our findings support a bullet rather than an ellipsoid prostate shape. Moreover, substituting the coefficient commonly used in the ellipsoid formula by our calculated coefficient in the equation estimating prostate volume by TRUS, provides a more accurate value of the true prostate volume. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6657110 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-66571102019-07-31 Improving ultrasound-based prostate volume estimation Aprikian, Saro Luz, Murilo Brimo, Fadi Scarlata, Eleonora Hamel, Lucie Cury, Fabio L. Tanguay, Simon Aprikian, Armen G. Kassouf, Wassim Chevalier, Simone BMC Urol Research Article BACKGROUND: To define a new coefficient to be used in the formula (Volume = L x H x W x Coefficient) that better estimates prostate volume using dimensions of fresh prostates from patients who had transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) imaging prior to prostatectomy. METHODS: The prostate was obtained from 153 patients, weighed and measured to obtain length (L), height (H), and width (W). The density was determined by water displacement to calculate volume. TRUS data were retrieved from patient charts. Linear regression analyses were performed to compare various prostate volume formulas, including the commonly used ellipsoid formula and newly introduced bullet-shaped formula. RESULTS: By relating measured prostate volumes from fresh prostates to TRUS-estimated prostate volumes, 0.66 was the best fitting coefficient in the (L x H x W x Coefficient) equation. This newfound coefficient combined with outlier removal yielded a linear equation with an R(2) of 0.64, compared to 0.55 and 0.60, for the ellipsoid and bullet, respectively. By comparing each of the measured vs. estimated dimensions, we observed that the mean prostate height and length were overestimated by 11.1 and 10.8% using ultrasound (p < 0.05), respectively, while the mean width was similar (p > 0.05). Overall, the ellipsoid formula underestimates prostate volumes by 18%, compared to an overestimation of 4.6 and 5.7% for the bullet formula and the formula using our coefficient, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study defines, for the first time, a coefficient based on freshly resected prostates as a reference to estimate volumes by imaging. Our findings support a bullet rather than an ellipsoid prostate shape. Moreover, substituting the coefficient commonly used in the ellipsoid formula by our calculated coefficient in the equation estimating prostate volume by TRUS, provides a more accurate value of the true prostate volume. BioMed Central 2019-07-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6657110/ /pubmed/31340802 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-019-0492-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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 Article Aprikian, Saro Luz, Murilo Brimo, Fadi Scarlata, Eleonora Hamel, Lucie Cury, Fabio L. Tanguay, Simon Aprikian, Armen G. Kassouf, Wassim Chevalier, Simone Improving ultrasound-based prostate volume estimation |
title | Improving ultrasound-based prostate volume estimation |
title_full | Improving ultrasound-based prostate volume estimation |
title_fullStr | Improving ultrasound-based prostate volume estimation |
title_full_unstemmed | Improving ultrasound-based prostate volume estimation |
title_short | Improving ultrasound-based prostate volume estimation |
title_sort | improving ultrasound-based prostate volume estimation |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6657110/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31340802 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-019-0492-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT aprikiansaro improvingultrasoundbasedprostatevolumeestimation AT luzmurilo improvingultrasoundbasedprostatevolumeestimation AT brimofadi improvingultrasoundbasedprostatevolumeestimation AT scarlataeleonora improvingultrasoundbasedprostatevolumeestimation AT hamellucie improvingultrasoundbasedprostatevolumeestimation AT curyfabiol improvingultrasoundbasedprostatevolumeestimation AT tanguaysimon improvingultrasoundbasedprostatevolumeestimation AT aprikianarmeng improvingultrasoundbasedprostatevolumeestimation AT kassoufwassim improvingultrasoundbasedprostatevolumeestimation AT chevaliersimone improvingultrasoundbasedprostatevolumeestimation |