Prostate weight is the preferred measure of prostate size in radical prostatectomy cohorts

OBJECTIVE •  To evaluate the accuracy of calculated prostate volume variables in a radical prostatectomy (RP) cohort, as many recent studies use these measures of prostate size instead of prostate weight. •  To determine whether this accuracy could be improved by modifying the mathematical model use...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:BJU international 2012-04, Vol.109 (s3), p.57-63
Main Authors: Hong, Matthew K.H., Yao, Henry H.I., Rzetelski‐West, Kathryn, Namdarian, Benjamin, Pedersen, John, Peters, Justin S., Hovens, Christopher M., Corcoran, Niall M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Androgens
Endosonography
Humans
Male
Mathematical models
Middle Aged
Models, Theoretical
Organ Size
Prostate
Prostate - diagnostic imaging
Prostate - pathology
prostate volume
prostate weight
Prostatectomy - methods
prostatic neoplasms
Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnosis
Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery
radical prostatectomy
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
transrectal ultrasonography
Variables
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:OBJECTIVE •  To evaluate the accuracy of calculated prostate volume variables in a radical prostatectomy (RP) cohort, as many recent studies use these measures of prostate size instead of prostate weight. •  To determine whether this accuracy could be improved by modifying the mathematical model used in the volume estimation. PATIENTS AND METHODS •  Patients who underwent RP for prostate cancer at our associated institutions had calculated specimen volumes and weights from RP specimens determined at one pathology institution and transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) volumes were recorded preoperatively (n= 236). •  Correlation analysis was performed and errors were determined for calculated volume variables when compared with prostate weight. •  Bland‐Altman plots were drawn and concordance coefficients calculated. •  Analysis was repeated with smaller prostates mathematically modelled as bullet‐shaped rather than ellipsoid (n= 165). RESULTS •  Although correlation was good for both TRUS and specimen volumes, they equally underestimated prostate weight with a large range of errors and poor concordance coefficients. •  Only 22% of TRUS volumes and 11% of calculated specimen volumes were within 10% of weight measurements. •  Application of a bullet‐shaped mathematical model for prostates
ISSN:1464-4096
1464-410X
DOI:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11049.x