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 … Show more
“…For the risk stratification of cancer, PSA density or PSA divided by prostate volume is a reliable biomarker. In a recent article, Massanova et al [20] reported that the actual surgical specimen weight correlated well with prostate volume on MRI, either by automatic segmentation software or by manual measurement, but not with transrectal US measurement. In our study, automatically measured prostate volume after loading the axial MRIs shows good agreement with manually measured volume from US.…”
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly important in the detection and localization of prostate cancer. Regarding suspicious lesions on MRI, a targeted biopsy using MRI fused with ultrasound (US) is widely used. To achieve a successful targeted biopsy, a precise registration between MRI and US is essential. The purpose of our study was to show any decrease in errors using a real-time nonrigid registration technique for prostate biopsy. Nineteen patients with suspected prostate cancer were prospectively enrolled in this study. Registration accuracy was calculated by the measuring distance of corresponding points by rigid and nonrigid registration between MRI and US, and compared for rigid and nonrigid registration methods. Overall cancer detection rates were also evaluated by patient and by core. Prostate volume was measured automatically from MRI and manually from US, and compared to each other. Mean distances between the corresponding points in MRI and US were 5.32 ± 2.61 mm for rigid registration and 2.11 ± 1.37 mm for nonrigid registration (p < 0.05). Cancer was diagnosed in 11 of 19 patients (57.9%), and in 67 of 266 biopsy cores (25.2%). There was no significant difference in prostate-volume measurement between the automatic and manual methods (p = 0.89). In conclusion, nonrigid registration reduces targeting errors.
“…For the risk stratification of cancer, PSA density or PSA divided by prostate volume is a reliable biomarker. In a recent article, Massanova et al [20] reported that the actual surgical specimen weight correlated well with prostate volume on MRI, either by automatic segmentation software or by manual measurement, but not with transrectal US measurement. In our study, automatically measured prostate volume after loading the axial MRIs shows good agreement with manually measured volume from US.…”
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly important in the detection and localization of prostate cancer. Regarding suspicious lesions on MRI, a targeted biopsy using MRI fused with ultrasound (US) is widely used. To achieve a successful targeted biopsy, a precise registration between MRI and US is essential. The purpose of our study was to show any decrease in errors using a real-time nonrigid registration technique for prostate biopsy. Nineteen patients with suspected prostate cancer were prospectively enrolled in this study. Registration accuracy was calculated by the measuring distance of corresponding points by rigid and nonrigid registration between MRI and US, and compared for rigid and nonrigid registration methods. Overall cancer detection rates were also evaluated by patient and by core. Prostate volume was measured automatically from MRI and manually from US, and compared to each other. Mean distances between the corresponding points in MRI and US were 5.32 ± 2.61 mm for rigid registration and 2.11 ± 1.37 mm for nonrigid registration (p < 0.05). Cancer was diagnosed in 11 of 19 patients (57.9%), and in 67 of 266 biopsy cores (25.2%). There was no significant difference in prostate-volume measurement between the automatic and manual methods (p = 0.89). In conclusion, nonrigid registration reduces targeting errors.
“…So, our study showed consistent results with the above study. In addition, there is a study that suggests the prostate volume obtained by MRI, either with the ellipsoid or bullet formula, proved to be almost accurate and time- and cost-effective [ 30 ]. Prostate volume was calculated based on TRUS in the above two studies, and more accurate analysis might have been possible if the prostate volume was obtained using MRI.…”
Background: To identify the role of combination biopsy, which consists of both targeted and additional systematic cores, in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with PSA levels 2.5–15 ng/mL who have a suspicious prostate lesion (with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) ≥ 3) on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) between January 2016 and December 2018. We analyzed biopsy results by PI-RADS score and biopsy methods (systematic, targeted, and combination biopsy). Results: Of the 711 total patients, an average of 4.0 ± 1.8 targeted and 8.6 ± 3.1 additional systematic biopsies were performed. The additional systematic biopsies were sampled outside the targeted biopsy area. The combination biopsies detected more csPCa (201 patients, 28.3%) than did the targeted (175 patients, 24.6%) or systematic (124 patients, 17.4%) biopsies alone (p < 0.001). In the initial biopsy samples, there was a 7% increase in the detection of csPCa than in targeted biopsy (62% to 69%). It increased by 11% in repeat biopsy (46% to 57%). There was no statistical significance in both groups (p = 0.3174). Conclusions: Combination biopsy has the benefit of detecting csPCa in both initial and repeat biopsy when there is a suspicious lesion on mpMRI.
“…The total prostate volume (PV) was calculated from the recorded specimen dimensions (length, width, and height) using the ellipsoid formula PV = height × width × length × π/6. For more accurate calculation of prostate volume, the whole mount prostate specimens for both groups were separated from the seminal vesicles and periprostatic fat [ 10 , 11 ]. Fig.…”
Background
Current prostate cancer (PCa) screening may detect nonprogressive lesion, leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The purpose of the present study is to investigate whether the tumor pathological origin of latent prostate cancer (lPCa) and clinical prostate cancer (cPCa) are consistent, and to verify the current clinically significant prostate cancer criteria.
Methods
Prostate specimens were obtained from postmortem autopsy between 2014 and 2021 and patients who went through radical prostatectomy from 2013 to 2021. The pathological characteristics and spatial distribution of the lPCa group and cPCa group were compared and analyzed through SPSS software with P < 0.05 representing statistical significant.
Results
In lPCa group, a total of 45 tumor lesions from 24 lPCa cases were included, 54.2% of lPCa patients were ISUP ≥ 2, 12.5% had tumor volume ≥ 0.5 ml, and 16.7% had extraprostatic extension (EPE). In cPCa group, there were a total of 429 tumor lesions in 126 cases, 92.1% of cPCa patients were ISUP ≥ 2, and 82.5% had tumor volume of ≥ 0.5 ml. 36.3% had EPE. LPCa and cPCa have the same spatial distribution characteristics, and no significant difference was detected between the anterior and posterior zone. Peripheral zone tumors were significantly more common than transitional zone tumors. Tumors in apical 1/3 and middle 1/3 were significantly more common than basal 1/3.
Conclusion
The malignancy of cPCa is significantly higher than that of lPCa, and the spatial distribution of cPCa and lPCa is consistent. ISUP grade 2 is not sufficient to determine clinical significance of tumor.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
