Evaluation of prostate size: a comparison of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging

To determine the relative accuracy of ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the evaluation of prostate volume, we compared US and MR images with surgical findings in 15 patients. Transabdominal US was excellent for determining prostate size in patients with small to moderate e...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Urologic radiology 1987, Vol.9 (1), p.1-8
Hauptverfasser: HRICAK, H, JEFFREY, R. B, DOOMS, G. C, TANAGHO, E. A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 8
container_issue 1
container_start_page 1
container_title Urologic radiology
container_volume 9
creator HRICAK, H
JEFFREY, R. B
DOOMS, G. C
TANAGHO, E. A
description To determine the relative accuracy of ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the evaluation of prostate volume, we compared US and MR images with surgical findings in 15 patients. Transabdominal US was excellent for determining prostate size in patients with small to moderate enlargement. When compared with surgical specimens, the difference between the weight of the gland as predicted by US and the actual weight was 14% (SD +/- 12). With the transabdominal approach, the length was often inaccurately imaged, but the addition of transrectal scans in the sagittal projection improved results: with combined transabdominal and transrectal US, the average difference in weight was 8% (SD +/- 7). The MRI more accurately predicted prostatic volume (average difference, 6% (SD +/- 6), but the difference between the latter 2 is not significant. In 5 additional patients who had undergone transurethral resection of the prostate, residual prostatic tissue was evaluated by MRI and US. In addition to demonstrating prostate size, transrectal sagittal US showed the relationship among the bladder neck, prostatic urethra, and remaining prostatic tissue. Real-time US also allowed evaluation of dynamic sphincteric contractions, which is a finding not available today with MRI. Tissue differentiation was attempted with both MRI and US. Neither imaging modality could differentiate benign from malignant disease.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77610636</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>77610636</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p167t-e8eef2ac861e0f87a4deb6aad14967e18874f88e7aebb7585130a2995bde38163</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kMtKBDEQRbNQxnH0E4QsxF1D0o8k7U6G0REG3KjbpjpdGSL9Mg9Bv97INC6KgrqHqnvrjKwZlzzjrOYX5NL7D8ZEXii2Iqu8LBkXak3ed1_QRwh2Gulk6OwmHyAg9fYH7ylQPQ0zOOtPcuyDAz_FsaOQaoDjiMFq6jABMGqkNs3seLwi5wZ6j9dL35C3x93rdp8dXp6etw-HbOZChgwVoslBK8GRGSWh7LAVAB0vayGRKyVLoxRKwLaVlap4wSCv66rtsFBcFBtyd9qbjH9G9KEZrNfY9zDiFH0jpeBMFH_gzQLGdsCumV1y6r6b5RFJv1108Bp641Ia6_8xWck83S5-AfDKZp8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>77610636</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of prostate size: a comparison of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>HRICAK, H ; JEFFREY, R. B ; DOOMS, G. C ; TANAGHO, E. A</creator><creatorcontrib>HRICAK, H ; JEFFREY, R. B ; DOOMS, G. C ; TANAGHO, E. A</creatorcontrib><description>To determine the relative accuracy of ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the evaluation of prostate volume, we compared US and MR images with surgical findings in 15 patients. Transabdominal US was excellent for determining prostate size in patients with small to moderate enlargement. When compared with surgical specimens, the difference between the weight of the gland as predicted by US and the actual weight was 14% (SD +/- 12). With the transabdominal approach, the length was often inaccurately imaged, but the addition of transrectal scans in the sagittal projection improved results: with combined transabdominal and transrectal US, the average difference in weight was 8% (SD +/- 7). The MRI more accurately predicted prostatic volume (average difference, 6% (SD +/- 6), but the difference between the latter 2 is not significant. In 5 additional patients who had undergone transurethral resection of the prostate, residual prostatic tissue was evaluated by MRI and US. In addition to demonstrating prostate size, transrectal sagittal US showed the relationship among the bladder neck, prostatic urethra, and remaining prostatic tissue. Real-time US also allowed evaluation of dynamic sphincteric contractions, which is a finding not available today with MRI. Tissue differentiation was attempted with both MRI and US. Neither imaging modality could differentiate benign from malignant disease.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0171-1091</identifier><identifier>PMID: 2440168</identifier><identifier>CODEN: URRADL</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Aged ; Biological and medical sciences ; Humans ; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) ; Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Prostate - pathology ; Prostatic Hyperplasia - diagnosis ; Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry ; Ultrasonography ; Urinary system</subject><ispartof>Urologic radiology, 1987, Vol.9 (1), p.1-8</ispartof><rights>1988 INIST-CNRS</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,4025</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=7572130$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2440168$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>HRICAK, H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>JEFFREY, R. B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DOOMS, G. C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>TANAGHO, E. A</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of prostate size: a comparison of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging</title><title>Urologic radiology</title><addtitle>Urol Radiol</addtitle><description>To determine the relative accuracy of ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the evaluation of prostate volume, we compared US and MR images with surgical findings in 15 patients. Transabdominal US was excellent for determining prostate size in patients with small to moderate enlargement. When compared with surgical specimens, the difference between the weight of the gland as predicted by US and the actual weight was 14% (SD +/- 12). With the transabdominal approach, the length was often inaccurately imaged, but the addition of transrectal scans in the sagittal projection improved results: with combined transabdominal and transrectal US, the average difference in weight was 8% (SD +/- 7). The MRI more accurately predicted prostatic volume (average difference, 6% (SD +/- 6), but the difference between the latter 2 is not significant. In 5 additional patients who had undergone transurethral resection of the prostate, residual prostatic tissue was evaluated by MRI and US. In addition to demonstrating prostate size, transrectal sagittal US showed the relationship among the bladder neck, prostatic urethra, and remaining prostatic tissue. Real-time US also allowed evaluation of dynamic sphincteric contractions, which is a finding not available today with MRI. Tissue differentiation was attempted with both MRI and US. Neither imaging modality could differentiate benign from malignant disease.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Prostate - pathology</subject><subject>Prostatic Hyperplasia - diagnosis</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry</subject><subject>Ultrasonography</subject><subject>Urinary system</subject><issn>0171-1091</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1987</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kMtKBDEQRbNQxnH0E4QsxF1D0o8k7U6G0REG3KjbpjpdGSL9Mg9Bv97INC6KgrqHqnvrjKwZlzzjrOYX5NL7D8ZEXii2Iqu8LBkXak3ed1_QRwh2Gulk6OwmHyAg9fYH7ylQPQ0zOOtPcuyDAz_FsaOQaoDjiMFq6jABMGqkNs3seLwi5wZ6j9dL35C3x93rdp8dXp6etw-HbOZChgwVoslBK8GRGSWh7LAVAB0vayGRKyVLoxRKwLaVlap4wSCv66rtsFBcFBtyd9qbjH9G9KEZrNfY9zDiFH0jpeBMFH_gzQLGdsCumV1y6r6b5RFJv1108Bp641Ia6_8xWck83S5-AfDKZp8</recordid><startdate>1987</startdate><enddate>1987</enddate><creator>HRICAK, H</creator><creator>JEFFREY, R. B</creator><creator>DOOMS, G. C</creator><creator>TANAGHO, E. A</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>1987</creationdate><title>Evaluation of prostate size: a comparison of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging</title><author>HRICAK, H ; JEFFREY, R. B ; DOOMS, G. C ; TANAGHO, E. A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p167t-e8eef2ac861e0f87a4deb6aad14967e18874f88e7aebb7585130a2995bde38163</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1987</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Prostate - pathology</topic><topic>Prostatic Hyperplasia - diagnosis</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry</topic><topic>Ultrasonography</topic><topic>Urinary system</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>HRICAK, H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>JEFFREY, R. B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DOOMS, G. C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>TANAGHO, E. A</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Urologic radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>HRICAK, H</au><au>JEFFREY, R. B</au><au>DOOMS, G. C</au><au>TANAGHO, E. A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of prostate size: a comparison of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging</atitle><jtitle>Urologic radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Urol Radiol</addtitle><date>1987</date><risdate>1987</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>8</epage><pages>1-8</pages><issn>0171-1091</issn><coden>URRADL</coden><abstract>To determine the relative accuracy of ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the evaluation of prostate volume, we compared US and MR images with surgical findings in 15 patients. Transabdominal US was excellent for determining prostate size in patients with small to moderate enlargement. When compared with surgical specimens, the difference between the weight of the gland as predicted by US and the actual weight was 14% (SD +/- 12). With the transabdominal approach, the length was often inaccurately imaged, but the addition of transrectal scans in the sagittal projection improved results: with combined transabdominal and transrectal US, the average difference in weight was 8% (SD +/- 7). The MRI more accurately predicted prostatic volume (average difference, 6% (SD +/- 6), but the difference between the latter 2 is not significant. In 5 additional patients who had undergone transurethral resection of the prostate, residual prostatic tissue was evaluated by MRI and US. In addition to demonstrating prostate size, transrectal sagittal US showed the relationship among the bladder neck, prostatic urethra, and remaining prostatic tissue. Real-time US also allowed evaluation of dynamic sphincteric contractions, which is a finding not available today with MRI. Tissue differentiation was attempted with both MRI and US. Neither imaging modality could differentiate benign from malignant disease.</abstract><cop>Heidelberg</cop><cop>Berlin</cop><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>2440168</pmid><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0171-1091
ispartof Urologic radiology, 1987, Vol.9 (1), p.1-8
issn 0171-1091
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77610636
source MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Aged
Biological and medical sciences
Humans
Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
Male
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Prostate - pathology
Prostatic Hyperplasia - diagnosis
Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnosis
Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry
Ultrasonography
Urinary system
title Evaluation of prostate size: a comparison of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-15T19%3A35%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20prostate%20size:%20a%20comparison%20of%20ultrasound%20and%20magnetic%20resonance%20imaging&rft.jtitle=Urologic%20radiology&rft.au=HRICAK,%20H&rft.date=1987&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=8&rft.pages=1-8&rft.issn=0171-1091&rft.coden=URRADL&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E77610636%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=77610636&rft_id=info:pmid/2440168&rfr_iscdi=true