准确性是关键:经直肠超声与磁共振成像确定前列腺体积的对比。

IF 0.6 4区 医学 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Dana Feldman, Maxwell Sandberg, Mark Xu, Wyatt Whitman, Janmejay Hingu, Gavin Underwood, Emily Ye, Sean Catley, Claudia Marie Costa, Ronald Davis Iii, Ashok Hemal, Alejandro Rodriguez
{"title":"准确性是关键:经直肠超声与磁共振成像确定前列腺体积的对比。","authors":"Dana Feldman, Maxwell Sandberg, Mark Xu, Wyatt Whitman, Janmejay Hingu, Gavin Underwood, Emily Ye, Sean Catley, Claudia Marie Costa, Ronald Davis Iii, Ashok Hemal, Alejandro Rodriguez","doi":"10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20257802.21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A multitude of options can be used to image the prostate, but transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging are the mainstays. Accuracy in prostate measurements is key to the preoperative planning of any surgical intervention planned on the prostate such as tissue resection or prostatectomy. Some evidence exists that magnetic resonance imaging is the most accurate modality, but given its cost, the clinical significance remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging prostate volumes with prostate gross specimens in men having tissue-confirmed prostate cancer who underwent robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy to determine accuracy in sizing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was a retrospective analysis conducted on men who underwent robotic prostatectomy for prostate cancer and had a preoperative transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging prostate size measurement (147 men in total) between 2012-2024. Patients were required to undergo robotic prostatectomy ≤2 months from the time of transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging prostate-size determination.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean transrectal ultrasound was significantly smaller on average than magnetic resonance imaging prostate volume (-4.8 mL; <i>p</i> < 0.001). Transrectal ultrasound (-14.4 mL) and magnetic resonance imaging (-9.5 mL) were significantly smaller than actual prostate weight (<i>p</i> < 0.001). The mean difference between transrectal ultrasound volume and prostate weight was significantly greater from the mean difference between magnetic resonance imaging volume and prostate weight (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Participants with high-grade (Gleason grade ≥8) and non-high-grade cancer (Gleason grade <8) did not differ in actual prostate weight after robotic radical prostatectomy or in estimated prostate volume (<i>p</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although transrectal ultrasound appears to be less accurate than magnetic resonance imaging in estimating prostate size, the difference is small, and it remains an adequate imaging modality in patients with prostate cancer.</p>","PeriodicalId":48852,"journal":{"name":"Archivos Espanoles De Urologia","volume":"78 2","pages":"151-156"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy is Key: Transrectal Ultrasound Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Determine Prostatic Volume.\",\"authors\":\"Dana Feldman, Maxwell Sandberg, Mark Xu, Wyatt Whitman, Janmejay Hingu, Gavin Underwood, Emily Ye, Sean Catley, Claudia Marie Costa, Ronald Davis Iii, Ashok Hemal, Alejandro Rodriguez\",\"doi\":\"10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20257802.21\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A multitude of options can be used to image the prostate, but transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging are the mainstays. Accuracy in prostate measurements is key to the preoperative planning of any surgical intervention planned on the prostate such as tissue resection or prostatectomy. Some evidence exists that magnetic resonance imaging is the most accurate modality, but given its cost, the clinical significance remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging prostate volumes with prostate gross specimens in men having tissue-confirmed prostate cancer who underwent robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy to determine accuracy in sizing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was a retrospective analysis conducted on men who underwent robotic prostatectomy for prostate cancer and had a preoperative transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging prostate size measurement (147 men in total) between 2012-2024. Patients were required to undergo robotic prostatectomy ≤2 months from the time of transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging prostate-size determination.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean transrectal ultrasound was significantly smaller on average than magnetic resonance imaging prostate volume (-4.8 mL; <i>p</i> < 0.001). Transrectal ultrasound (-14.4 mL) and magnetic resonance imaging (-9.5 mL) were significantly smaller than actual prostate weight (<i>p</i> < 0.001). The mean difference between transrectal ultrasound volume and prostate weight was significantly greater from the mean difference between magnetic resonance imaging volume and prostate weight (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Participants with high-grade (Gleason grade ≥8) and non-high-grade cancer (Gleason grade <8) did not differ in actual prostate weight after robotic radical prostatectomy or in estimated prostate volume (<i>p</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although transrectal ultrasound appears to be less accurate than magnetic resonance imaging in estimating prostate size, the difference is small, and it remains an adequate imaging modality in patients with prostate cancer.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48852,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archivos Espanoles De Urologia\",\"volume\":\"78 2\",\"pages\":\"151-156\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archivos Espanoles De Urologia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20257802.21\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archivos Espanoles De Urologia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20257802.21","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:有多种方法可用于前列腺成像,但经直肠超声和磁共振成像是主流。前列腺测量的准确性是任何前列腺外科手术(如组织切除或前列腺切除术)术前计划的关键。一些证据表明,磁共振成像是最准确的方式,但考虑到其成本,临床意义仍不确定。本研究旨在比较经直肠超声和磁共振成像前列腺体积与前列腺大体标本在组织确诊前列腺癌的男性中进行机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术,以确定尺寸的准确性。方法:本研究是对2012-2024年间接受前列腺癌机器人前列腺切除术并术前经直肠超声和磁共振成像前列腺大小测量的男性(共147名男性)进行回顾性分析。患者需要在经直肠超声和磁共振成像前列腺大小确定后≤2个月进行机器人前列腺切除术。结果:经直肠超声平均前列腺体积明显小于磁共振成像(-4.8 mL;P < 0.001)。经直肠超声(-14.4 mL)和磁共振成像(-9.5 mL)均显著小于实际前列腺重量(p < 0.001)。经直肠超声体积与前列腺重量的平均差值明显大于磁共振成像体积与前列腺重量的平均差值(p < 0.001)。高级别(Gleason分级≥8)和非高级别癌症(Gleason分级p < 0.05)患者。结论:虽然经直肠超声在估计前列腺大小方面似乎不如磁共振成像准确,但差异很小,它仍然是前列腺癌患者的一种适当的成像方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Accuracy is Key: Transrectal Ultrasound Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Determine Prostatic Volume.

Background: A multitude of options can be used to image the prostate, but transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging are the mainstays. Accuracy in prostate measurements is key to the preoperative planning of any surgical intervention planned on the prostate such as tissue resection or prostatectomy. Some evidence exists that magnetic resonance imaging is the most accurate modality, but given its cost, the clinical significance remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging prostate volumes with prostate gross specimens in men having tissue-confirmed prostate cancer who underwent robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy to determine accuracy in sizing.

Methods: This study was a retrospective analysis conducted on men who underwent robotic prostatectomy for prostate cancer and had a preoperative transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging prostate size measurement (147 men in total) between 2012-2024. Patients were required to undergo robotic prostatectomy ≤2 months from the time of transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging prostate-size determination.

Results: Mean transrectal ultrasound was significantly smaller on average than magnetic resonance imaging prostate volume (-4.8 mL; p < 0.001). Transrectal ultrasound (-14.4 mL) and magnetic resonance imaging (-9.5 mL) were significantly smaller than actual prostate weight (p < 0.001). The mean difference between transrectal ultrasound volume and prostate weight was significantly greater from the mean difference between magnetic resonance imaging volume and prostate weight (p < 0.001). Participants with high-grade (Gleason grade ≥8) and non-high-grade cancer (Gleason grade <8) did not differ in actual prostate weight after robotic radical prostatectomy or in estimated prostate volume (p > 0.05).

Conclusions: Although transrectal ultrasound appears to be less accurate than magnetic resonance imaging in estimating prostate size, the difference is small, and it remains an adequate imaging modality in patients with prostate cancer.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Archivos Espanoles De Urologia
Archivos Espanoles De Urologia UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: Archivos Españoles de Urología published since 1944, is an international peer review, susbscription Journal on Urology with original and review articles on different subjets in Urology: oncology, endourology, laparoscopic, andrology, lithiasis, pediatrics , urodynamics,... Case Report are also admitted.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信