The Comparison of Imaging and Clinical Methods to Estimate Prostate Volume: A Single-Centre Retrospective Study
The Comparison of Imaging and Clinical Methods to Estimate Prostate Volume: A Single-Centre Retrospective Study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1159/000516681
复制
发表时间：
2021-07-09
影响因子：
1.6
通讯作者：
Crocetto, Felice
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Massanova, Matteo;Robertson, Sophie;Crocetto, Felice
背景资料：前列腺体积（PV）是许多前列腺疾病（包括前列腺癌和良性前列腺肥大）的风险分层、诊断和随访的有用工具。目前还没有公认的理想的PV测量方法。目的：本研究比较了多种PV估计方法，包括直肠指检（DRE）、经直肠超声（TRUS）和磁共振成像（MRI）以及根治性直肠切除术标本，以确定最佳体积测量方式。方法：对使用机构数据库确定的患者进行回顾性、观察性、单中心研究。共考虑了197例接受机器人辅助根治性直肠癌切除术的患者。收集的数据包括年龄、前列腺活检时的血清PSA、临床T分期、Gleason评分和以下每种方法的PV：DRE、TRUS、MRI和手术标本重量（SPW）和体积。结果如下：进行了配对t检验，报告了PV测量值（DRE、TRUS、MRI椭圆体、MRI子弹头、SP椭圆体和SP子弹头）与实际前列腺重量之间的统计学显著差异。最低的差异报告为SP椭球体体积（M =-2.37;标准差[SD]= 10.227; t [167]=-3.011;和p = 0.003），MRI椭球体体积（M =-4.318; SD = 9.53; t [167]=-5.87;和p = 0.000）和MRI子弹体积（M = 5.31; SD = 10.77; t [167]= 6.387;和p = 0.000）。结论：通过MRI获得的PV已被证明与通过自动分割软件获得的PV以及实际SPW相关，同时也更具成本效益和时间效率。因此，证明MRI估计PV是临床实践中用于治疗计划和患者随访的适当方法。
Background: Prostate volume (PV) is a useful tool in risk stratification, diagnosis, and follow-up of numerous prostatic diseases including prostate cancer and benign prostatic hypertrophy. There is currently no accepted ideal PV measurement method. Objective: This study compares multiple means of PV estimation, including digital rectal examination (DRE), transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and radical prostatectomy specimens to determine the best volume measurement style. Methods: A retrospective, observational, single-site study with patients identified using an institutional database was performed. A total of 197 patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy were considered. Data collected included age, serum PSA at the time of the prostate biopsy, clinical T stage, Gleason score, and PVs for each of the following methods: DRE, TRUS, MRI, and surgical specimen weight (SPW) and volume. Results: A paired t test was performed, which reported a statistically significant difference between PV measures (DRE, TRUS, MRI ellipsoid, MRI bullet, SP ellipsoid, and SP bullet) and the actual prostate weight. Lowest differences were reported for SP ellipsoid volume (M = -2.37; standard deviation [SD] = 10.227; t[167] = -3.011; and p = 0.003), MRI ellipsoid volume (M = -4.318; SD = 9.53; t[167] = -5.87; and p = 0.000), and MRI bullet volume (M = 5.31; SD = 10.77; t[167] = 6.387; and p = 0.000). Conclusion: The PV obtained by MRI has proven to correlate with the PV obtained via auto-segmentation software as well as actual SPW, while also being more cost-effective and time-efficient. Therefore, demonstrating that MRI estimated the PV is an adequate method for use in clinical practice for therapeutic planning and patient follow-up.