The accuracy of prostate volume measurement from ultrasound images: A quasi-Monte Carlo simulation study using magnetic resonance imaging

Prostate volume is an important parameter to guide management of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and to deliver clinical trial endpoints. Generally, simple 2D ultrasound (US) approaches are favoured despite the potential for greater accuracy afforded by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or complex US procedures. In this study, different approaches to estimate prostate size are evaluated with a simulation to select multiple organ cross-sections and diameters from 22 MRI-defined prostate shapes. A quasi-Monte Carlo (qMC) approach is used to simulate multiple probe positions and angles within prescribed limits resulting in a range of dimensions. The basic ellipsoid calculation which uses two scanning planes compares well to the MRI volume across the range of prostate shapes and sizes (R=0.992). However, using an appropriate linear regression model, accurate volume estimates can be made using prostate diameters calculated from a single scanning plane.

[1]  S. Bruce Malkowicz,et al.  Comparison of prostate volume measured by transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging: is transrectal ultrasound suitable to determine which patients should undergo active surveillance? , 2013, Urologic oncology.

[2]  William H. Press,et al.  Numerical recipes: the art of scientific computing, 3rd Edition , 2007 .

[3]  Seung Hyup Kim,et al.  Correlations between the Various Methods of Estimating Prostate Volume: Transabdominal, Transrectal, and Three-Dimensional US , 2008, Korean journal of radiology.

[4]  Jae Seok Lee,et al.  Transrectal Ultrasound versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Estimation of Prostate Volume as Compared with Radical Prostatectomy Specimens , 2007, Urologia Internationalis.

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

[6]  R G Aarnink,et al.  Reproducibility of prostate volume measurements from transrectal ultrasonography by an automated and a manual technique. , 1996, British journal of urology.

[7]  D. Johnston,et al.  Prostate cancer detection: relationship to prostate size. , 1999, Urology.

[8]  Douglas Skarecky,et al.  Prostate volume estimation using the ellipsoid formula consistently underestimates actual gland size. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[9]  W Boeckmann,et al.  Determination of prostate gland volume by transrectal ultrasound: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens. , 1995, European urology.

[10]  Timothy F. Cootes,et al.  Active Shape Models-Their Training and Application , 1995, Comput. Vis. Image Underst..

[11]  E. Saff,et al.  Distributing many points on a sphere , 1997 .

[12]  Philip D. Allen,et al.  Differential segmentation of the prostate in MR images using combined 3D shape modelling and voxel classification , 2006, 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: Nano to Macro, 2006..

[13]  Ralph R. Martin,et al.  Using low-discrepancy sequences and the Crofton formula to compute surface areas of geometric models , 2003, Comput. Aided Des..

[14]  Chang Wook Jeong,et al.  Comparison of Prostate Volume Measured by Transrectal Ultrasonography and MRI with the Actual Prostate Volume Measured after Radical Prostatectomy , 2005, Urologia Internationalis.

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

[16]  M. H. Quenouille.  NOTES ON BIAS IN ESTIMATION , 1956 .

[17]  William J Catalona,et al.  Accuracy of prostate weight estimation by digital rectal examination versus transrectal ultrasonography. , 2005, The Journal of urology.

[18]  M M Elhilali,et al.  Reassessment of nonplanimetric transrectal ultrasound prostate volume estimates. , 1996, Urology.

[19]  W F Dähnert,et al.  Determination of prostate volume with transrectal US for cancer screening. , 1992, Radiology.

[20]  W. Press,et al.  Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing , 1987 .

[21]  C M Tempany,et al.  Accuracy of In‐Vivo Assessment of Prostatic Volume by MRI and Transrectal Ultrasonography , 1992, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[22]  Timothy F. Cootes,et al.  A minimum description length approach to statistical shape modeling , 2002, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

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

[24]  H. Niederreiter.  Quasi-Monte Carlo methods and pseudo-random numbers , 1978 .

[25]  J E Wickham,et al.  Transrectal ultrasonography: why are estimates of prostate volume and dimension so inaccurate? , 1996, British journal of urology.

[26]  M. Greenwood.  An Introduction to Medical Statistics , 1932, Nature.

[27]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[28]  S. Tong,et al.  Intra- and inter-observer variability and reliability of prostate volume measurement via two-dimensional and three-dimensional ultrasound imaging. , 1998, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.