Variability in MRI vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: a case series

BackgroundProstate volume can affect whether patients qualify for brachytherapy (desired size ≥20 mL and ≤60 mL) and/or active surveillance (desired PSA density ≤0.15 for very low risk disease). This study examines variability in prostate volume measurements depending on imaging modality used (ultrasound versus MRI) and volume calculation technique (contouring versus ellipsoid) and quantifies the impact of this variability on treatment recommendations for men with favorable-risk prostate cancer.MethodsWe examined 70 patients who presented consecutively for consideration of brachytherapy for favorable-risk prostate cancer who had volume estimates by three methods: contoured axial ultrasound slices, ultrasound ellipsoid (height × width × length × 0.523) calculation, and endorectal coil MRI (erMRI) ellipsoid calculation.ResultsAverage gland size by the contoured ultrasound, ellipsoid ultrasound, and erMRI methods were 33.99, 37.16, and 39.62 mLs, respectively. All pairwise comparisons between methods were statistically significant (all p < 0.015). Of the 66 patients who volumetrically qualified for brachytherapy on ellipsoid ultrasound measures, 22 (33.33%) did not qualify on ellipsoid erMRI or contoured ultrasound measures. 38 patients (54.28%) had PSA density ≤0.15 ng/dl as calculated using ellipsoid ultrasound volumes, compared to 34 (48.57%) and 38 patients (54.28%) using contoured ultrasound and ellipsoid erMRI volumes, respectively.ConclusionsThe ultrasound ellipsoid and erMRI ellipsoid methods appeared to overestimate ultrasound contoured volume by an average of 9.34% and 16.57% respectively. 33.33% of those who qualified for brachytherapy based on ellipsoid ultrasound volume would be disqualified based on ultrasound contoured and/or erMRI ellipsoid volume. As treatment recommendations increasingly rely on estimates of prostate size, clinicians must consider method of volume estimation.

[1]  W. J. Hadden,et al.  A Comparison of , 1971 .

[2]  References , 1971 .

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

[4]  C M Tempany,et al.  MR imaging of the prostate and bladder. , 1998, Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR.

[5]  W Cavanagh,et al.  Use of pelvic CT scanning to evaluate pubic arch interference of transperineal prostate brachytherapy. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[6]  J. Manola,et al.  Identifying the predictors of acute urinary retention following magnetic-resonance-guided prostate brachytherapy. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[7]  J. Blasko,et al.  Brachytherapy in patients with small prostate glands. , 2000, Techniques in urology.

[8]  S Sutlief,et al.  Transperineal brachytherapy in patients with large prostate glands , 2000, International journal of cancer.

[9]  R. Stock,et al.  Prostate brachytherapy in patients with prostate volumes >/= 50 cm(3): dosimetic analysis of implant quality. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[10]  S. B. Park,et al.  Prostate Volume Measurement by TRUS Using Heights Obtained by Transaxial and Midsagittal Scanning: Comparison with Specimen Volume Following Radical Prostatectomy , 2000, Korean journal of radiology.

[11]  W. Butler,et al.  Effect of prostate size and isotope selection on dosimetric quality following permanent seed implantation. , 2000, Techniques in urology.

[12]  J. Blasko,et al.  Risk factors for acute urinary retention requiring temporary intermittent catheterization after prostate brachytherapy: a prospective study. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[13]  C. Catton,et al.  Factors influencing risk of acute urinary retention after TRUS-guided permanent prostate seed implantation. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[14]  R. Stock,et al.  Influence of prostate volume on dosimetry results in real-time 125I seed implantation. , 2004, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[15]  A. D'Amico,et al.  Acute urinary retention after magnetic resonance image-guided prostate brachytherapy with and without neoadjuvant external beam radiotherapy. , 2005, Urology.

[16]  Masayuki Matsuo,et al.  MRI-based preplanning in low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy. , 2008, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[17]  Magnetic resonance imaging prostate volumes could be used as a surrogate for transrectal ultrasound volumes in estimating iodine-125 seeds required in brachytherapy. , 2009, Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)).

[18]  K. Wallner,et al.  Permanent prostate brachytherapy in prostate glands <20 cm(3). , 2010, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[19]  Z. Nugent,et al.  The dosimetric quality of brachytherapy implants in patients with small prostate volume depends on the experience of the brachytherapy team. , 2010, Brachytherapy.

[20]  A. D'Amico,et al.  Risk of all-cause and prostate cancer-specific mortality after brachytherapy in men with small prostate size. , 2011, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[21]  M. Middleton,et al.  Prostate contouring variation: can it be fixed? , 2012, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[22]  Nawaid Usmani,et al.  Comparison of prostate volume, shape, and contouring variability determined from preimplant magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images. , 2012, Brachytherapy.

[23]  V. Narayana,et al.  Greater postimplant swelling in small-volume prostate glands: implications for dosimetry, treatment planning, and operating room technique. , 2012, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[24]  Wayne M Butler,et al.  American Brachytherapy Society consensus guidelines for transrectal ultrasound-guided permanent prostate brachytherapy. , 2012, Brachytherapy.

[25]  M. Haider,et al.  The expanding role of MRI in prostate cancer. , 2013, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[26]  T. Pugh,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging-based treatment planning for prostate brachytherapy. , 2013, Brachytherapy.

[27]  Katarzyna J Macura,et al.  Prostate Volumetric Assessment by Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Transrectal Ultrasound: Impact of Variation in Calculated Prostate-Specific Antigen Density on Patient Eligibility for Active Surveillance Program , 2013, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[28]  A. D'Amico,et al.  Prostate cancer, version 2.2014. , 2014, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[29]  David C. Miller,et al.  Prostate Cancer,,Version 2.2014 Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology , 2014 .

[30]  Luciant D. Wolfsberger,et al.  Dosimetric quality and evolution of edema after low-dose-rate brachytherapy for small prostates: implications for the use of newer isotopes. , 2014, Brachytherapy.