No abstract

<b><i>Background:</i></b> 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. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> 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. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> 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. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A paired <i>t</i> 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 (<i>M</i> = −2.37; standard deviation [SD] = 10.227; <i>t</i>[167] = −3.011; and <i>p</i> = 0.003), MRI ellipsoid volume (<i>M</i> = −4.318; SD = 9.53; <i>t</i>[167] = −5.87; and <i>p</i> = 0.000), and MRI bullet volume (<i>M</i> = 5.31; SD = 10.77; <i>t</i>[167] = 6.387; and <i>p</i> = 0.000). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> 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.

Background: The accuracy of multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) in the pre-operative staging of prostate cancer (PCa) remains controversial. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of mpMRI to accurately predict PCa extra-prostatic extension (EPE) on a side-specific basis using a risk-stratified 5-point Likert scale. This study also aimed to assess the influence of mpMRI scan quality on diagnostic accuracy. Patients and Methods: We included 124 men who underwent robot-assisted RP (RARP) as part of the NeuroSAFE PROOF study at our centre. Three radiologists retrospectively reviewed mpMRI blinded to RP pathology and assigned a Likert score (1–5) for EPE on each side of the prostate. Each scan was also ascribed a Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score for assessing the quality of the mpMRI scan, where 1 represents the poorest and 5 represents the best diagnostic quality. Outcome measurements and statistical analyses: Diagnostic performance is presented for the binary classification of EPE, including 95% confidence intervals and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: A total of 231 lobes from 121 men (mean age 56.9 years) were evaluated. Of these, 39 men (32.2%), or 43 lobes (18.6%), had EPE. A Likert score ≥3 had a sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), NPV, and PPV of 90.4%, 52.3%, 96%, and 29.9%, respectively, and the AUC was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.77–0.86). The AUC was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.64–0.88), 0.78 (0.72–0.84), and 0.92 (0.88–0.96) for biparametric scans, PI-QUAL 1–3, and PI-QUAL 4–5 scans, respectively. Conclusions: MRI can be used effectively by genitourinary radiologists to rule out EPE and help inform surgical planning for men undergoing RARP. EPE prediction was more reliable when the MRI scan was (a) multi-parametric and (b) of a higher image quality according to the PI-QUAL scoring system.

No abstract