Premium
Which is the best radiological imaging method for predicting actual prostate weight?
Author(s) -
Gok Bahri,
Hajiyev Elchin,
Hamidi Nurullah,
Koc Erdem,
Asil Erem,
Canda Abdullah Erdem,
Ardicoglu Arslan,
Atmaca Ali Fuat,
Keseroglu Bugra Bilge
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
andrologia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.633
H-Index - 59
eISSN - 1439-0272
pISSN - 0303-4569
DOI - 10.1111/and.13770
Subject(s) - prostate , medicine , prostatectomy , transrectal ultrasonography , magnetic resonance imaging , urology , radiology , nuclear medicine , cancer
Abstract In this study, we compared the weight of the prostate specimen removed after robotic radical prostatectomy with the prostate weight measured pre‐operatively by four different imaging modalities. Pre‐operative prostate weight before robotic radical prostatectomy was measured by Transabdominal Ultrasonography (TAUS), Transrectal Ultrasonography (TRUS), Abdominal Tomography (CT) and MultiparametricProstate Magnetic Resonance imaging (mpMRI). Of the 170 patients enrolled in the study, the mean age was 65.2 ± 7.08 (46–84) years and mean prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) 9.6 ± 7.7 (1.8–50). The mean post‐operative actual prostate weight was 63.1 ± 30 gr. The mean pre‐operative prostate volumes measured by TAUS, TRUS, CT and MPMRI were 64.5 ± 28.5, 49.1 ± 30.6, 54.5 ± 30.5 and 68.7 ± 31.7 ml, respectively ( p < .001). Post‐operative actual prostate weight correlated with prostate weight measured by TAUS, TRUS, CT and mpMRI (r coefficient 0.776, 0.802, 0.768 and 0.825 respectively). The best of these was mpMRI. Although prostate weight measured by different imaging methods has a high correlation to predict actual prostate weight, actual prostate weight is best predicted by measurements with mpMRI. However, errors and deviations that may occur with these imaging methods should be taken into consideration.