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.

Seyed Saeid Dianat, Ramiro M. Rancier Ruiz, David Bonekamp, H Ballentine Carter, Katarzyna Macura

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate impact of prostate volume variations on prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) and patient eligibility for active surveillance (AS). Prostate volume and PSAD were calculated for 46 patients with prostate cancer in AS who underwent prostate magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). Manual method and 2 semiautomated methods for prostate segmentation (3D-SLICER and OsiriX) were used for MR volumetry. Magnetic resonance volumetric methods showed very good agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.98). The concordance correlation coefficient was higher among MR volumetry methods (0.971-0.998) than between TRUS and MR volumetry (0.849-0.863). The variation in PSAD estimated by TRUS versus magnetic resonance imaging was higher in large prostates (r = 0.327, P = 0.027). Transrectal ultrasonography volumetry may improperly classify 20% of patients as eligible for AS with PSAD greater than 0.15 threshold. Although clinically used TRUS reliably estimates PSAD, it may misclassify some patients who are not eligible for AS based on PSAD criteria. Magnetic resonance-based volumetry should be considered for a more reliable PSAD calculation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)589-595
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Computer Assisted Tomography
Volume37
Issue number4
StatePublished - Jul 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Prostate-Specific Antigen
Prostate
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
Ultrasonography
Prostatic Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

@article{99df904960ac4d20bb8a8336c2af0154,
title = "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.",
abstract = "The objective of this study was to investigate impact of prostate volume variations on prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) and patient eligibility for active surveillance (AS). Prostate volume and PSAD were calculated for 46 patients with prostate cancer in AS who underwent prostate magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). Manual method and 2 semiautomated methods for prostate segmentation (3D-SLICER and OsiriX) were used for MR volumetry. Magnetic resonance volumetric methods showed very good agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.98). The concordance correlation coefficient was higher among MR volumetry methods (0.971-0.998) than between TRUS and MR volumetry (0.849-0.863). The variation in PSAD estimated by TRUS versus magnetic resonance imaging was higher in large prostates (r = 0.327, P = 0.027). Transrectal ultrasonography volumetry may improperly classify 20{\%} of patients as eligible for AS with PSAD greater than 0.15 threshold. Although clinically used TRUS reliably estimates PSAD, it may misclassify some patients who are not eligible for AS based on PSAD criteria. Magnetic resonance-based volumetry should be considered for a more reliable PSAD calculation.",
author = "Dianat, {Seyed Saeid} and {Rancier Ruiz}, {Ramiro M.} and David Bonekamp and Carter, {H Ballentine} and Katarzyna Macura",
year = "2013",
month = "7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "37",
pages = "589--595",
journal = "Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography",
issn = "0363-8715",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prostate volumetric assessment by magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound

T2 - impact of variation in calculated prostate-specific antigen density on patient eligibility for active surveillance program.

AU - Dianat, Seyed Saeid

AU - Rancier Ruiz, Ramiro M.

AU - Bonekamp, David

AU - Carter, H Ballentine

AU - Macura, Katarzyna

PY - 2013/7

Y1 - 2013/7

N2 - The objective of this study was to investigate impact of prostate volume variations on prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) and patient eligibility for active surveillance (AS). Prostate volume and PSAD were calculated for 46 patients with prostate cancer in AS who underwent prostate magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). Manual method and 2 semiautomated methods for prostate segmentation (3D-SLICER and OsiriX) were used for MR volumetry. Magnetic resonance volumetric methods showed very good agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.98). The concordance correlation coefficient was higher among MR volumetry methods (0.971-0.998) than between TRUS and MR volumetry (0.849-0.863). The variation in PSAD estimated by TRUS versus magnetic resonance imaging was higher in large prostates (r = 0.327, P = 0.027). Transrectal ultrasonography volumetry may improperly classify 20% of patients as eligible for AS with PSAD greater than 0.15 threshold. Although clinically used TRUS reliably estimates PSAD, it may misclassify some patients who are not eligible for AS based on PSAD criteria. Magnetic resonance-based volumetry should be considered for a more reliable PSAD calculation.

AB - The objective of this study was to investigate impact of prostate volume variations on prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) and patient eligibility for active surveillance (AS). Prostate volume and PSAD were calculated for 46 patients with prostate cancer in AS who underwent prostate magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). Manual method and 2 semiautomated methods for prostate segmentation (3D-SLICER and OsiriX) were used for MR volumetry. Magnetic resonance volumetric methods showed very good agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.98). The concordance correlation coefficient was higher among MR volumetry methods (0.971-0.998) than between TRUS and MR volumetry (0.849-0.863). The variation in PSAD estimated by TRUS versus magnetic resonance imaging was higher in large prostates (r = 0.327, P = 0.027). Transrectal ultrasonography volumetry may improperly classify 20% of patients as eligible for AS with PSAD greater than 0.15 threshold. Although clinically used TRUS reliably estimates PSAD, it may misclassify some patients who are not eligible for AS based on PSAD criteria. Magnetic resonance-based volumetry should be considered for a more reliable PSAD calculation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84884321558&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84884321558&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 23863537

AN - SCOPUS:84884321558

VL - 37

SP - 589

EP - 595

JO - Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography

JF - Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography

SN - 0363-8715

IS - 4

ER -