Ultrasonography.  2023 Jan;42(1):154-164. 10.14366/usg.22104.

Prostate gland volume estimation: anteroposterior diameters measured on axial versus sagittal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance images

• Yoon SY
• Choi MH
• Lee YJ
• Grimm R
• von Busch H
• Han D
• Son Y
• Lou B
• Kamen A

• KMID: 2537431
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.14366/usg.22104

Abstract

Purpose
The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of prostate volume estimates calculated from the ellipsoid formula using the anteroposterior (AP) diameter measured on axial and sagittal images obtained through ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
Methods
This retrospective study included 456 patients with transrectal US and MRI from two university hospitals. Two radiologists independently measured the prostate gland diameters on US and MRI: AP diameters on axial and sagittal images, transverse, and longitudinal diameters on midsagittal images. The volume estimates, volumeax and volumesag, were calculated from the ellipsoid formula by using the AP diameter on axial and sagittal images, respectively. The prostate volume extracted from MRI-based whole-gland segmentation was considered the gold standard. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to evaluate the inter-method agreement between volumeax and volumesag, and agreement with the gold standard. The Wilcoxon signedrank test was used to analyze the differences between the volume estimates and the gold standard.
Results
The prostate gland volume estimates showed excellent inter-method agreement, and excellent agreement with the gold standard (ICCs >0.9). Compared with the gold standard, the volume estimates were significantly larger on MRI and significantly smaller on US (P<0.001). The volume difference (segmented volume–volume estimate) was greater in patients with larger prostate glands, especially on US.
Conclusion
Volumeax and volumesag showed excellent inter-method agreement and excellent agreement with the gold standard on both US and MRI. However, prostate volume was overestimated on MRI and underestimated on US.

Keyword

Prostate gland volume; Magnetic resonance imaging; Ultrasonography; Interobserver variability; Inter-method variability