A comparison of CT scan to transrectal ultrasound-measured prostate volume in untreated prostate cancer.

PURPOSE To compare CT and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-measured prostate volumes in patients with untreated prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS Between 1995 and 1999, 48 consecutive patients at the Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center were treated with external beam radiotherapy. In 36 of these patients, TRUS and CT measurements of the prostate volume were obtained before treatment and <6 months apart. The TRUS volume was calculated using the prolate ellipsoid formula. The CT volume was calculated from the contours of the prostate drawn by one physician, who was unaware of the TRUS volume calculation, on axial CT images. RESULTS The TRUS and CT prostate volume measurements correlated strongly (Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.925, 95% confidence interval 0.856-0.961, p < 0.0001). The CT volume was consistently larger than the TRUS volume by a factor of approximately 1.5. In men with a TRUS prostate volume less than the median (<28 cm(3)), the CT/TRUS volume ratio was 1.7, and it was 1.4 for men whose volume was greater than the median. The CT volumes were correlated similarly with the TRUS volumes regardless of the CT slice interval. CONCLUSION A strong correlation was found between CT scan and TRUS measurement of the prostate volume; however, CT consistently overestimated the prostate volume by approximately 50% compared with TRUS.

[1]  L. Håheim,et al.  Accuracy and repeatability of prostate volume measurements by transrectal ultrasound , 2002, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.

[2]  C. Catton,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for localization of the prostatic apex: comparison to computed tomography (CT) and urethrography. , 1998, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[3]  M. Terris,et al.  Determination of prostate volume by transrectal ultrasound. , 1991, The Journal of urology.

[4]  A. Agranovich,et al.  Computed tomography determination of prostate volume and maximum dimensions: a study of interobserver variability. , 2002, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[5]  George Starkschall,et al.  Prostate cancer radiation dose response: results of the M. D. Anderson phase III randomized trial. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[6]  David Beyer,et al.  Interobserver variability leads to significant differences in quantifiers of prostate implant adequacy. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[7]  K. Wallner,et al.  The importance of radiation doses to the penile bulb vs. crura in the development of postbrachytherapy erectile dysfunction. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[8]  H. Hricak,et al.  Prostate volumes defined by magnetic resonance imaging and computerized tomographic scans for three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. , 1996, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[9]  W Cavanagh,et al.  Comparability of CT-based and TRUS-based prostate volumes. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[10]  V. Weinberg,et al.  Dose of radiation received by the bulb of the penis correlates with risk of impotence after three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer. , 2001, Urology.

[11]  G E Hanks,et al.  Localization of the prostatic apex for radiation treatment planning. , 1995, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[12]  G E Hanks,et al.  Initial clinical assessment of CT-MRI image fusion software in localization of the prostate for 3D conformal radiation therapy. , 1997, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[13]  H M Sandler,et al.  Localization of the prostatic apex for radiation therapy using implanted markers. , 1993, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[14]  Dan Ash,et al.  Impact of prostate volume evaluation by different observers on CT-based post-implant dosimetry. , 2002, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[15]  C. Fiorino,et al.  Intra- and inter-observer variability in contouring prostate and seminal vesicles: implications for conformal treatment planning. , 1998, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[16]  R Nath,et al.  Correlation of medical dosimetry quality indicators to the local tumor control in patients with prostate cancer treated with iodine-125 interstitial implants. , 1998, Medical physics.

[17]  C B Begg,et al.  The effect of local control on metastatic dissemination in carcinoma of the prostate: long-term results in patients treated with 125I implantation. , 1991, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[18]  P L Roberson,et al.  Impact of differences in ultrasound and computed tomography volumes on treatment planning of permanent prostate implants. , 1997, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[19]  J. Fracchia,et al.  The accuracy of transrectal ultrasound prostate volume estimation: Clinical correlations , 1996, Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU.

[20]  A. Tewari,et al.  Comparison of transrectal ultrasound prostatic volume estimation with magnetic resonance imaging volume estimation and surgical specimen weight in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia , 1996, Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU.

[21]  P L Roberson,et al.  Comparison of MRI pulse sequences in defining prostate volume after permanent implantation. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.