Determination of Prostate Volume

Rationale and Objectives Prostate volume (PV) determination provides important clinical information. We compared PVs determined by digital rectal examination (DRE), transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with or without three-dimensional (3D) segmentation software, and surgical prostatectomy weight (SPW) and volume (SPV). Materials and Methods This retrospective review from 2010 to 2016 included patients who underwent radical prostatectomy ≤1 year after multiparametric prostate MRI. PVs from DRE and TRUS were obtained from urology clinic notes. MRI-based PVs were calculated using bullet and ellipsoid formulas, automated 3D segmentation software (MRI-A3D), manual segmentation by a radiologist (MRI-R3D), and a third-year medical student (MRI-S3D). SPW and SPV were derived from pathology reports. Intraclass correlation coefficients compared the relative accuracy of each volume measurement. Results Ninety-nine patients were analyzed. Median PVs were DRE 35 mL, TRUS 35 mL, MRI-bullet 49 mL, MRI-ellipsoid 39 mL, MRI-A3D 37 mL, MRI-R3D 36 mL, MRI-S3D 36 mL, SPW 54 mL, SPV-bullet 47 mL, and SPV-ellipsoid 37 mL. SPW and bullet formulas had consistently large PV, and formula-based PV had a wider spread than PV based on segmentation. Compared to MRI-R3D, the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.91 for MRI-S3D, 0.90 for MRI-ellipsoid, 0.73 for SPV-ellipsoid, 0.72 for MRI-bullet, 0.71 for TRUS, 0.70 for SPW, 0.66 for SPV-bullet, 0.38 for MRI-A3D, and 0.33 for DRE. Conclusions With MRI-R3D measurement as the reference, the most reliable methods for PV estimation were MRI-S3D and MRI-ellipsoid formula. Automated segmentations must be individually assessed for accuracy, as they are not always truly representative of the prostate anatomy. Manual segmentation of the prostate does not require expert training.