Korean J Urol.  2014 Jul;55(7):470-474. 10.4111/kju.2014.55.7.470.

Prostate Volume Measurement by Transrectal Ultrasonography: Comparison of Height Obtained by Use of Transaxial and Midsagittal Scanning

• Kim SB
• Cho IC
• Min SK

• KMID: 1794576
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2014.55.7.470

Abstract

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to compare prostate volume measured by transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) between transaxial scanning and midsagittal scanning. We tried to determine which method is superior.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A total of 968 patients who underwent TRUS for diagnosis of any diseases related to the prostate were included in this study. When measuring prostate volume by TRUS, we conducted the measurements two ways at the same time in all patients: by use of height obtained by transaxial scanning and by use of height obtained by midsagittal scanning. Prostate volume was calculated by using the ellipsoid formula ([heightxlengthxwidth]xpi/6).
RESULTS
For prostate volume measured by TRUS, a paired t-test revealed a significant difference between using height obtained by transaxial scanning and that obtained by midsagittal scanning in all patients (28.5+/-10.1 g vs. 28.7+/-9.9 g, respectively, p=0.004). However, there were no significant differences in the prevalence of prostate volume more than 20 g (known benign prostatic enlargement [BPE]) between the two methods by chi-square test (90.5% [n=876], 90.8% [n=879], respectively; p=0.876). When analyzed in the same way, there were no significant differences in the prevalence of prostate volume more than 30 g (generally, high-risk BPE) between the two methods (34.5% [n=334], 36.3% [n=351], respectively; p=0.447).
CONCLUSIONS
Although prostate volume by TRUS differed according to the method used to measure height, that is, transaxial or midsagittal scanning, we conclude that there are no problems in diagnosing BPE clinically by use of either of the two methods.

Keyword

Prostate; Prostatic hyperplasia; Ultrasonography

MeSH Terms

Adult
Age Factors
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Prospective Studies
Prostate/*pathology/ultrasonography
Prostatic Hyperplasia/*pathology/ultrasonography
Reproducibility of Results
Ultrasonography/methods
Young Adult

Figure

• 

  FIG. 1 Measurement of prostate volume by transrectal ultrasonography. (A) Height (arrow) was measured by transaxial scanning (2.94 cm), and prostate volume was calculated as 24.95 mL. (B) Height (arrow) was measured by midsagittal scanning (3.32 cm), and prostate volume was calculated as 28.16 mL.

Reference

1. Harding C, Robson W, Drinnan M, Sajeel M, Ramsden P, Griffiths C, et al. Predicting the outcome of prostatectomy using noninvasive bladder pressure and urine flow measurements. Eur Urol. 2007; 52:186–192.

2. 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.

3. Littrup PJ, Williams CR, Egglin TK, Kane RA. Determination of prostate volume with transrectal US for cancer screening. Part II. Accuracy of in vitro and in vivo techniques. Radiology. 1991; 179:49–53.

4. Ramey JR, Halpern EJ, Gomella LG. Ultrasonography and biopsy of the prostate. In : Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, Partin AW, Peters CA, editors. Campbell-Walsh urology. 9th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders;2007. p. 2884–2886.

5. al-Rimawi M, Griffiths DJ, Boake RC, Mador DR, Johnson MA. Transrectal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in the estimation of prostatic volume. Br J Urol. 1994; 74:596–600.

6. Tewari A, Indudhara R, Shinohara K, Schalow E, Woods M, Lee R, 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.

7. 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.

8. Dahnert WF. Determination of prostate volume with transrectal US for cancer screening. Radiology. 1992; 183:625–626.

9. Terris MK, Stamey TA. Determination of prostate volume by transrectal ultrasound. J Urol. 1991; 145:984–987.

10. Loeb S, Han M, Roehl KA, Antenor JA, Catalona WJ. Accuracy of prostate weight estimation by digital rectal examination versus transrectal ultrasonography. J Urol. 2005; 173:63–65.

11. Nathan MS, Seenivasagam K, Mei Q, Wickham JE, Miller RA. Transrectal ultrasonography: why are estimates of prostate volume and dimension so inaccurate. Br J Urol. 1996; 77:401–407.

12. Rodriguez E Jr, Skarecky D, Narula N, Ahlering TE. Prostate volume estimation using the ellipsoid formula consistently underestimates actual gland size. J Urol. 2008; 179:501–503.

13. Arrighi HM, Metter EJ, Guess HA, Fozzard JL. Natural history of benign prostatic hyperplasia and risk of prostatectomy. The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. Urology. 1991; 38:1 Suppl. 4–8.

14. Jacobsen SJ, Jacobson DJ, Girman CJ, Roberts RO, Rhodes T, Guess HA, et al. Natural history of prostatism: risk factors for acute urinary retention. J Urol. 1997; 158:481–487.

15. Garraway WM, Collins GN, Lee RJ. High prevalence of benign prostatic hypertrophy in the community. Lancet. 1991; 338:469–471.

16. Bosch JL, Kranse R, van Mastrigt R, Schroder FH. Reasons for the weak correlation between prostate volume and urethral resistance parameters in patients with prostatism. J Urol. 1995; 153(3 Pt 1):689–693.

17. Cho JS, Kim CI, Seong DH, Kim HS, Kim YS, Kim SJ, et al. Cut-off point of large prostate volume for the patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Korean J Urol. 2005; 46:1246–1250.

18. Hong SJ, Ko WJ, Kim SI, Chung BH. Identification of baseline clinical factors which predict medical treatment failure of benign prostatic hyperplasia: an observational cohort study. Eur Urol. 2003; 44:94–99.

19. Jacobsen SJ, Jacobson DJ, Girman CJ, Roberts RO, Rhodes T, Guess HA, et al. Treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia among community dwelling men: the Olmsted County study of urinary symptoms and health status. J Urol. 1999; 162:1301–1306.

20. Debruyne F, Barkin J, van Erps P, Reis M, Tammela TL, Roehrborn C, et al. Efficacy and safety of long-term treatment with the dual 5 alpha-reductase inhibitor dutasteride in men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. Eur Urol. 2004; 46:488–494.

21. Bosch JL, Bangma CH, Groeneveld FP, Bohnen AM. The long-term relationship between a real change in prostate volume and a significant change in lower urinary tract symptom severity in population-based men: the Krimpen study. Eur Urol. 2008; 53:819–825.

22. McConnell JD. The long term effects of medical therapy on the progression of BPH: results from the MTOPS trial [abstract]. J Urol. 2002; 167:1042.