Comparative study of standard and small transrectal transducers for prostate ultrasonography.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate pain and image quality associated with the use of two different ultrasound transducers. METHODS: Fifty healthy male participants aged 30 years or older were prospectively enrolled. All ultrasound procedures were performed using a V8 machine (Samsung Medison, Seoul, Korea) equipped with EA2-11 (conventional) and miniER7 (small-caliber) transrectal transducers, operated by a single genitourinary radiologist. To minimize bias, one group of volunteers underwent ultrasonography with the conventional transducer first, followed by the small transducer. For the remaining participants, the examinations were performed in the opposite order. Ultrasonography, including the measurement of total prostate and transitional zone volumes, was conducted in accordance with standard practice. After testing with both probes, participants were asked to rate their pain on a 10-point numerical rating scale (NRS). A radiologist then evaluated the quality of the images acquired with each probe using a 5-point numeric scale and compared the prostate volume measurements obtained by each method. RESULTS: The mean NRS scores associated with the conventional and small transducers were 4.7±1.8 and 2.7±1.2, respectively (P<0.05). The mean ultrasound image qualities from the two transducers were statistically similar (4.78 and 4.74, P>0.05). The whole prostate gland volume as measured with the conventional transducer (mean±standard deviation, 24.2±9.1 mL) was greater than the measurement (22.1±8.7 mL) obtained with the small-caliber transducer (P<0.05). However, only two of the 50 whole gland volume measurements differed by more than two standard deviations. CONCLUSION: The use of a small transrectal probe significantly reduced pain without compromising image quality.

Prostate gland volume estimation: anteroposterior diameters measured on axial versus sagittal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance images.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of prostate volume estimates calculated from the ellipsoid formula using the anteroposterior (AP) diameter measured on axial and sagittal images obtained through ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: This retrospective study included 456 patients with transrectal US and MRI from two university hospitals. Two radiologists independently measured the prostate gland diameters on US and MRI: AP diameters on axial and sagittal images, transverse, and longitudinal diameters on midsagittal images. The volume estimates, volumeax and volumesag, were calculated from the ellipsoid formula by using the AP diameter on axial and sagittal images, respectively. The prostate volume extracted from MRI-based whole-gland segmentation was considered the gold standard. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to evaluate the inter-method agreement between volumeax and volumesag, and agreement with the gold standard. The Wilcoxon signedrank test was used to analyze the differences between the volume estimates and the gold standard. RESULTS: The prostate gland volume estimates showed excellent inter-method agreement, and excellent agreement with the gold standard (ICCs >0.9). Compared with the gold standard, the volume estimates were significantly larger on MRI and significantly smaller on US (P<0.001). The volume difference (segmented volume-volume estimate) was greater in patients with larger prostate glands, especially on US. CONCLUSION: Volumeax and volumesag showed excellent inter-method agreement and excellent agreement with the gold standard on both US and MRI. However, prostate volume was overestimated on MRI and underestimated on US.

Indications for additional volume studies for gland volume estimation in prostate cancer brachytherapy.

An estimated gland volume of > 60 cc is a relative contraindication to brachytherapy for prostate cancer. As volume estimation using biopsy ultrasound (Bx-US) alone may be inaccurate, many centers perform additional volume assessments prior to the brachytherapy procedure. At the study institution, computed tomography (CT) based volume assessments were routinely performed on all patients to determine brachytherapy eligibility. This study aimed to determine whether this CT imaging could be omitted for certain Bx-US based gland volume estimates. To investigate this, 1576 consecutive patients that received ultrasound based intraoperatively planned brachytherapy at a single comprehensive cancer center between 2003 and 2021 were reviewed. Gland volume as estimated by Bx-US, CT and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging were compared to intraoperatively contoured gland volume (ICGV) or the larger contoured gland volume on CT for any patients receiving neo-adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for gland downsizing (IM-US-corr). There was a significant difference between IM-US-corr and estimated gland volume for Bx-US (P < 0.001) and MR (P < 0.001), but not CT (P = 0.160). Bx-US and MR tended to underrepresent the IM-US-corr, with a > 20% difference from actual volume in 31% and 59% of cases, respectively. When Bx-US volume was estimated to be < 40 cc, < 50 cc and < 60 cc, an IM-US-corr > 60 cc was encountered in 2%, 5% and 7% of cases, respectively. In contrast, IM-US-corr > 60 cc was encountered in 0.2%, 1% and 2% of cases for CT estimates of < 40 cc, < 50 cc and < 60 cc. In patients with an estimated gland volume of < 50 cc by Bx-US, dedicated pre-operative volume studies are unlikely to alter management. However, patients above this cut-off stand to benefit from the use of additional volume assessment to better delineate gland volume and determine eligibility for brachytherapy.

Optimization of prostate cancer diagnosis by increasing the number of core biopsies based on gland volume.

In this prospective, non-randomized phase-I clinical trial, we comparatively studied the performance of six laterally-directed biopsies or the modified fan-shaped biopsies (MFSB), midline sextant biopsies (MB), and transition zone biopsies (TZB) and examine their prostate cancer (PCa) detection rates. A total of 114 patients received combinations of MFSB, MB, and TZB based on prostate gland volume: those ≤15 cc received 8 biopsies; those >15 cc but ≤ 50 cc received 14 biopsies; and those >50 cc received 20 biopsies. The mean prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, Gleason score, and prostate volume were 8.0 ng/ml, 6.4, and 47 cc, respectively. PCa detection rate of the MB was 25% while the MFSB was 22%. The overall PCa detection rate was 33.3% with all biopsies. PCa and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HG-PIN) detection rates decrease as the size of the prostate increases. PCa detection rates were 50.0% for volumes ≤19.9 cc and volumes of >50 cc had a detection rate of 25.8%. PSA levels of <3.0 had PCa detection rates of 15% which increased to 58% with PSA levels >9.0. In a multivariate analysis, only TZB was significant for PCa diagnosed by PSA (ß=7.4, p<0.01). Our study showed that it is important to perform both the lateral MFSB and the MB to improve overall PCa detections rates. Thus, we recommend performing MB, MFSB, and TZB based on prostate volume, as follows: 8 biopsies for ≤15 cc; 14 for those >15 cc but ≤50 cc, and 14-20 for those >50 cc.