TRUS versus transabdominal ultrasound as a predictor of enucleated adenoma weight in patients with BPH
- 184 Downloads
Despite being formally included in the assessment of patients presenting with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) is not routinely offered to these patients. This tactic however might not be optimum since data exist on the superiority of TRUS over transabdominal ultrasound in accurately predicting prostate volumes. We aimed to evaluate TRUS as a standard tool in the evaluation of patients with benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) with a special focus on the potential impact it might have on the decision of open versus transurethral surgery.
Patients and methods
Seventy-one patients presenting with LUTS due to BPH and eventually managed with open surgery based on their preference and prostate volume were included in the protocol. TRUS was performed in all patients preoperatively and calculations of the transition zone were made. These were compared with respective transabdominal calculations of the prostate volume as well as the enucleated specimen weight (W).
TRUS slightly underestimated W by 4.4% (95% CI 10.5, 1.7) while transabdominal ultrasound overestimated it by 55.7% (95% CI 31.8, 79.6). Regression analysis indicated TRUS as a better predictor of W (R 2 = 0.817, P < 0.0005) followed by transabdominal ultrasound (R 2 = 0.669, P < 0.0005). Strictly based on European Association of Urology (EAU) criteria, transabdominal measurements miscategorized 25 cases by falsely assigning them to the open surgery (>80 cc) group while TRUS did so for four cases.
TRUS is more accurate than transabdominal ultrasound in predicting adenoma volume in patients with BPH and its standard use might lead to fewer open approaches, with consequent less morbidity and hospitalization.
KeywordsTransition zone Prostate Transrectal ultrasonography
The authors would like to thank Prof. Elias Zintzaras (University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece) for his assistance and support in statistical analysis.
- 1.de la Rosette J, Alivizatos G, Madersbacher S, Rioja Sanz C, Nordling J, Emberton M, Gravas S, Michel MC, Oelke M (2007) EAU 2007 guidelines on benign prostatic hyperplasia European Association of Urology, 2007 edn, pp 5–59Google Scholar
- 2.Grayhack JT, McVary KT, Kozlowski JM (2002) Benign prostatic hyperplasia. In: Gillenwater JY, Grayhack JT, Howards SS, Mitchell ME (eds) Adult and pediatric urology, 4th edn. LWW, Philadelphia, pp 1401–1470Google Scholar
- 3.Kaplan SA, McConnell JD, Roehrborn CG, Meehan AG, Lee MW, Noble WR, Kusek JW, Nyberg LM Jr, Medical Therapy of Prostatic Symptoms (MTOPS) Research Group (2006) Combination therapy with doxazosin and finasteride for benign prostatic hyperplasia in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms and a baseline total prostate volume of 25 ml or greater. J Urol 175:217–220. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00041-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Ash D, Flynn A, Battermann J, de Reijke T, Lavagnini P, Blank L, ESTRA/EAU Urological Brachytherapy Group, EORTC Radiotherapy Group (2000) ESTRO/EAU/EORTC recommendations on permanent seed implantation for localized prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 57:315–321. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8140(00)00306-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Aus G, Bergdahl S, Hugosson J, Norlén L (1994) Volume determinations of the whole prostate and of adenomas by transrectal ultrasound in patients with clinically benign prostatic hyperplasia: correlation of resected weight, blood loss and duration of operation. Br J Urol 73:659–663. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.1994.tb07552.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Baltaci S, Yagci C, Aksoy H, Elan AH, Gögüs O (2000) Determination of transition zone volume by transrectal ultrasound in patients with clinically benign prostatic hyperplasia: agreement with enucleated prostate adenoma weight. J Urol 164:72–75. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67452-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Matthews GJ, Motta J, Fracehia JA (1996) The accuracy of transrectal ultrasound prostate volume estimation: clinical correlations. J Clin Ultrasound 24:501–505. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0096(199611/12)24:9<501::AID-JCU2>3.0.CO;2-R CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Tewari A, Indudhara R, Shinohara K, Schalow E, Woods M, Lee R, Anderson C, Narayan P (1996) Comparison of transrectal ultrasound prostatic volume estimation with magnetic resonance imaging volume estimation and surgical specimen weight in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Clin Ultrasound 24:169–174. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0096(199605)24:4<169::AID-JCU2>3.0.CO;2-D CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Cabello Benavente R, Jara Rascon J, Monzo JI, Lopez Diez I, Subira Rios D, Lledo Garcia E, Herranz Amo F, Hernandez Fernandez C (2006) Volume determinations of the whole prostate and of the adenoma by transrectal ultrasound: correlation with surgical specimen. Actas Urol Esp 30:175–180PubMedGoogle Scholar