Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Paper
  • Published:

Accuracy and repeatability of prostate volume measurements by transrectal ultrasound

Abstract

We evaluated six alternative methods of prostate volume determination by transrectal ultrasound, three based on planimetry and three based on measurement of prostate diameters. Prostate volume measurements were made on an average of 6.5 occasions over a 3 y period on 41 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia, using standard techniques. We defined the average of multiple planimetries as the prostate reference volume. Agreement with the reference volume and reproducibility at repeat testing was in the same range for single planimetry and volume determinations based on the formulas height (H)×width (W)×length (L)×π/6 and W×W×H×π/6, but was poorer using the formula W×W×W×π/6. Using the average result of two successive planimetry measurements increased the reproducibility of planimetry, being statistically significantly better than for one single planimetry (P=0.024) or for the formula W×W×H×π/6 (P=0.048). Our study suggests that the simple formula based methods of prostate volume determination provide results that are only marginally inferior to one single planimetry, but results are improved by performing two planimetry measurements.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aarnink RG, De La Rosette JJMCH, Debruyne FMJ, Wijkstra H . Reproducibility of prostate volume measurements from transrectal ultrasonography by an automated and a manual technique Br J Urol 1996 78: 219–223

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hendrikx AJM et al. Audex medical, a new system for digital processing and analysis of ultrasonographic images of the prostate Scand J Urol Nephrol 1991 137: 95–100

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kimura A, Kurooka Y, Kitamura T, Kawabe K . Biplane planimetry as a new method for prostatic volume calculation in transrectal ultrasonography Int J Urol 1997 4: 152–156

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Nathan MS et al. Transrectal ultrasonography: why are estimates of prostate volume and dimension so inaccurate? Br J Urol 1996 77: 401–407

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Terris MK, Stamey TA . Determination of prostate volume by transrectal ultrasound J Urol 1991 145: 984–987

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bates TS, Reynard JM, Peters TJ, Gingell JC . Determination of prostatic volume with transrectal ultrasound: a study of intra-observer and interobserver variation J Urol 1996 155: 1299–1300

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Myschetzky PS et al. Determination of prostate gland volume by transrectal ultrasound: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens Scand J Urol Nephrol 1991 137: (Suppl) 107–111

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Matthews GJ, Motta J, Fracchia JA . The accuracy of transrectal ultrasound prostate volume estimation: clinical correlations J Clin Ultrasound 1996 24: 501–505

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bonilla J et al. Intra- and interobserver variability of MRI prostate volume measurements Prostate 1997 31: 98–102

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Andersen JT et al and the Scandinavian BPH Study Group.. Can finasteride reverse the progress of benign prostatic hyperplasia? A two-year placebo-controlled study Urology 1995 46: 631–637

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Jepsen JV, Leverson G, Bruskewitz C . Variability in urinary flow rate and prostate volume: an investigation using the placebo arm of a drug trial J Urol 1998 160: 1689–1694

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rhodes T et al. High variability change in prostate volume by transrectal ultrasound over time within untreated men J Urol 1996 155: 461A (suppl) (abstract 600)

  13. Jones DR et al. Assessment of volume measurement of the prostate using per-rectal ultrasonography Br J Urol 1989 64: 493–495

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hastak SM, Gammelgaard J, Holm HH . Transrectal ultrasonic volume determination of the prostate—a preoperative and postoperative study J Urol 1982 127: 1115–1118

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Elliot TL et al. Accuracy of prostate volume measurements in vitro using three-dimensional ultrasound Academ Radiol 1996 3: 401–406

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bonilla J et al. Patterns of prostate growth observed in placebo treated patients in the PLESS trial over four years J Urol 1998 159: 333 (suppl) (abstract 1281)

  17. Ray PS et al. Methodologic variations in medical treatment of BPH J Urol 1989 149: 534A (suppl) (abstract 1478)

  18. Tong S et al. Intra- and inter-observer variability and reliability of prostate volume measurement via two-dimensional and three-dimensional ultrasound imaging Ultrason Med Biol 1998 5: 673–681

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eri, L., Thomassen, H., Brennhovd, B. et al. Accuracy and repeatability of prostate volume measurements by transrectal ultrasound. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 5, 273–278 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.pcan.4500568

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.pcan.4500568

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links