Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Division of Urology, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Urol Oncol. 2013 Nov;31(8):1436-40. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2012.03.002. Epub 2012 Apr 13.
To compare prostate volume obtained by transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and endorectal MRI (eMRI) to assess the reliability of TRUS in determining prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density.
Data for 2,410 patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (CaP) and treated with radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) at the University of Pennsylvania Health System between 1991 and 2005 was reviewed. Of these patients, 756 had both a preoperative TRUS and eMRI of the prostate performed. Prostate size was estimated using the prolate ellipsoid formula (height × width × length × π/6); maximal height or antero-posterior (A-P) diameter was determined using a midsagittal view for TRUS and an axial view for eMRI. Pearson's correlation, linear regression, and paired t-test were performed to compare prostate volumes estimated via both imaging modalities.
Average prostate size measured with TRUS and eMRI correlated significantly with one another (R = 0.801; P < 0.0001), demonstrating a strong linear relationship (y = 0.891x + 2.622, R(2) = 0.642). Comparison of PSA density also demonstrated a strong linear relationship (y = 0.811x + 0.053, R(2) = 0.765). Average prostate volume differed by 1.7 ml (TRUS relative to eMRI), which was statistically significant based on a paired t-test (P < 0.001). Upon stratification of patients into three groups based on average TRUS volume (≤ 30, >30-60, and >60 ml), significant correlation (0.318, 0.564, 0.650) and difference between volumes (-2.1, 4.0, 5.1 ml; P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001, P < 0.05 TRUS relative to eMRI) was maintained.
Prostate volume estimations with TRUS and eMRI are highly correlated. It is therefore, reasonable to conclude that in the hands of an experienced sonographer, TRUS is not only an efficient and economical examination, but also an accurate and reproducible modality to estimate prostate size.
通过比较经直肠超声(TRUS)和直肠内磁共振成像(eMRI)获得的前列腺体积,评估 TRUS 在确定前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)密度方面的可靠性。
回顾了 1991 年至 2005 年期间在宾夕法尼亚大学健康系统接受根治性前列腺切除术(RRP)治疗的 2410 例局限性前列腺癌(CaP)患者的数据。其中 756 例患者术前均行 TRUS 和 eMRI 前列腺检查。使用扁长椭球公式(高度×宽度×长度×π/6)估计前列腺大小;TRUS 采用正中矢状位,eMRI 采用轴位测量最大高度或前后径(AP)。采用 Pearson 相关、线性回归和配对 t 检验比较两种影像学方法估计的前列腺体积。
TRUS 和 eMRI 测量的平均前列腺大小彼此之间存在显著相关性(R = 0.801;P < 0.0001),表明存在很强的线性关系(y = 0.891x + 2.622,R2 = 0.642)。PSA 密度的比较也显示出很强的线性关系(y = 0.811x + 0.053,R2 = 0.765)。TRUS 与 eMRI 相比,平均前列腺体积差异为 1.7 ml,基于配对 t 检验具有统计学意义(P < 0.001)。根据平均 TRUS 体积(≤30、>30-60 和 >60 ml)将患者分为三组,体积之间存在显著相关性(0.318、0.564、0.650)和差异(-2.1、4.0、5.1 ml;P < 0.0001、P < 0.0001、P < 0.05 TRUS 相对于 eMRI)。
TRUS 和 eMRI 估计的前列腺体积高度相关。因此,可以合理地得出结论,在经验丰富的超声医师手中,TRUS 不仅是一种高效、经济的检查方法,而且也是一种准确、可重复的估计前列腺大小的方法。