Prostate volume on transrectal ultrasound: comparing ultrasounds performed by urologists to radiologists.

Marie-Elise Henckes, Ben Van Cleynenbreugel
{"title":"Prostate volume on transrectal ultrasound: comparing ultrasounds performed by urologists to radiologists.","authors":"Marie-Elise Henckes, Ben Van Cleynenbreugel","doi":"10.32604/cju.2026.072379","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aims to assess the precision of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) measurement of the prostate volume when performed by a urologist compared with a radiologist. To date, no prior research has directly compared the accuracy of prostate volume measurements between these two groups.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective study was conducted using data from 307 men who underwent enucleation of the prostate between 2020 and 2022 in two Belgian hospitals (University Hospital Leuven and Maria Middelares Hospital [Ghent]). A comparison was made between the prostate volume measured on ultrasound pre-operatively and the measured resected volume after enucleation. We compared these differences in volume in men who had their ultrasound performed by a urologist (N = 114), those who had it performed by a radiologist (N = 175), and those who had an MRI pre-operatively as a measurement (N = 18).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A multivariate regression to predict measured prostate volume was performed with age, estimated prostate volume, and pathology result as predictors, which was significant at α = 0.05, F(3, 302) = 168.104, p < 0.001, RAdjusted2 = 0.686. Adding the imaging modality (ultrasound performed by a urologist or radiologist, or MRI) to the base model did not significantly improve the prediction of measured prostate volume, F-change(3, 299) = 0.367, p = 0.777. Seven outliers were identified (|Z-score| > 2), of which six measurements were performed by resident urologists (N = 19) and one by a certified urologist (N = 95).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrates no evidence that prostate volume measurements performed by radiologists using ultrasound are more accurate than those performed by urologists. The higher number of outliers among resident urologists likely reflects the well-known learning curve associated with prostate ultrasound and highlights the importance of standardized training.</p>","PeriodicalId":520500,"journal":{"name":"The Canadian journal of urology","volume":"33 4","pages":"811-817"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Canadian journal of urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32604/cju.2026.072379","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to assess the precision of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) measurement of the prostate volume when performed by a urologist compared with a radiologist. To date, no prior research has directly compared the accuracy of prostate volume measurements between these two groups.

Methods: A retrospective study was conducted using data from 307 men who underwent enucleation of the prostate between 2020 and 2022 in two Belgian hospitals (University Hospital Leuven and Maria Middelares Hospital [Ghent]). A comparison was made between the prostate volume measured on ultrasound pre-operatively and the measured resected volume after enucleation. We compared these differences in volume in men who had their ultrasound performed by a urologist (N = 114), those who had it performed by a radiologist (N = 175), and those who had an MRI pre-operatively as a measurement (N = 18).

Results: A multivariate regression to predict measured prostate volume was performed with age, estimated prostate volume, and pathology result as predictors, which was significant at α = 0.05, F(3, 302) = 168.104, p < 0.001, RAdjusted2 = 0.686. Adding the imaging modality (ultrasound performed by a urologist or radiologist, or MRI) to the base model did not significantly improve the prediction of measured prostate volume, F-change(3, 299) = 0.367, p = 0.777. Seven outliers were identified (|Z-score| > 2), of which six measurements were performed by resident urologists (N = 19) and one by a certified urologist (N = 95).

Conclusion: This study demonstrates no evidence that prostate volume measurements performed by radiologists using ultrasound are more accurate than those performed by urologists. The higher number of outliers among resident urologists likely reflects the well-known learning curve associated with prostate ultrasound and highlights the importance of standardized training.

经直肠超声摄护腺体积:比较泌尿科医师与放射科医师的超声检查结果。
目的:本研究旨在评估经直肠超声(TRUS)测量前列腺体积时,由泌尿科医生与放射科医生进行比较的准确性。到目前为止,还没有先前的研究直接比较这两组前列腺体积测量的准确性。方法:回顾性研究使用了2020年至2022年期间在比利时两家医院(鲁汶大学医院和根特玛丽亚米德拉雷斯医院)接受前列腺摘除手术的307名男性的数据。将术前超声测量的前列腺体积与去核后测量的前列腺体积进行比较。我们比较了由泌尿科医生进行超声检查的男性(N = 114)、由放射科医生进行超声检查的男性(N = 175)和术前进行MRI检查的男性(N = 18)的体积差异。结果:以年龄、前列腺体积估计值和病理结果作为预测因素,进行多因素回归预测前列腺体积,α = 0.05, F(3,302) = 168.104, p < 0.001, RAdjusted2 = 0.686。在基础模型中加入成像方式(泌尿科医生或放射科医生进行的超声检查,或MRI)并没有显著改善前列腺体积测量的预测,f变化(3,299)= 0.367,p = 0.777。鉴定出7个异常值(|Z-score| |),其中6个测量由住院泌尿科医生(N = 19)完成,1个由注册泌尿科医生(N = 95)完成。结论:本研究没有证据表明放射科医生使用超声进行的前列腺体积测量比泌尿科医生进行的更准确。住院泌尿科医师中较高的异常值可能反映了众所周知的与前列腺超声相关的学习曲线,并强调了标准化培训的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书