Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment of in vivo calculation with ultrasonography compared to physical sections in vitro: a stereological study of prostate volumes

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Anatomical Science International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We compared three methods for the determination of prostate volume: prostate volume measured via transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS); the Cavalieri method for measuring physical sections; and volume by displacement. TRUS volumes were calculated by the prolate ellipsoid volume formula. Five patients underwent TRUS examination of the prostate prior to radical prostatectomy; specimens were measured when freshly excised. Mean prostate volume by fluid displacement, before formalin fixation was 52.8 ± 21.5 cm3, and after formalin fixation 50.4 ± 20.9 cm3. Volumes determined by the Cavalieri principle (point-counting and planimetry) were 47.8 ± 19.3 and 49.1 ± 20.5 cm3; volume measured by TRUS was 42.9 ± 21.9 cm3. Thus TRUS underestimated prostate volume by 21.4%, but excellent agreement was found between actual volume and point counting techniques. We believe that the classic ellipsoid formula is inadequate for determining prostate volume.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aarnink RG, Giesen RJ, de la Rosette JJ, Huynen AL, Debruyne FM, Wijkstra H (1995) Planimetric volumetry of the prostate: how accurate is it? Physiol Meas 16:141–150

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Algan O, Hanks GE, Shaer AH (1995) Localization of the prostatic apex for radiation treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 33:925–930

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Qaisieh B, Ash D, Bottomley DM, Carey BM (2002) Impact of prostate volume evaluation by different observers on CT-based post-implant dosimetry. Radiother Oncol 62:267–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bapat S, Purnapatre S, Ketan P, Pushkaraj Y, Abhijit P, Bodhe Y (2006) Does estimation of prostate volume by abdominal ultrasonography vary with bladder volume: a prospective study with transrectal ultrasonography as a reference. Indian J Urol 22:322–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Berthelet E, Liu MC, Agranovich A et al (2002) Computed tomography determination of prostate volume and maximum dimensions: a study of interobserver variability. Radiother Oncol 63:37–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cruz-Orive LM (1993) Systematic sampling in stereology. Bull Int Stat Inst 55:451–468

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot TL, Downey DB, Tong S, McLean CA, Fenster A (1996) Accuracy of prostate volume measurements in vitro using three-dimensional ultrasound. Acad Radiol 3:401–406

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eri LM, Thomassen H, Brennhovd B, Håheim LL (2002) Accuracy and repeatability of prostate volume measurements by transrectal ultrasound. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 5:273–278

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • García-Fiñana M, Cruz-Orive LM, Mackay CE, Pakkenberg B, Roberts N (2003) Comparison of MR imaging against physical sectioning to estimate the volume of human cerebral compartments. Neuroimage 18:505–516

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gundersen HJG (1988) Some new simple and efficient stereological methods and their use in pathological research and diagnosis. Acta Pathol Microbiol Immunol Scand A 96:379–394

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gundersen HJG, Jensen EB (1987) The efficiency of systematic sampling in stereology and its prediction. J Microsc 147:229–263

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gundersen HJ, Jensen EB, Kiêu K, Nielsen J (1999) The efficiency of systematic sampling in stereology reconsidered. J Microsc 193:199–211

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Howard CV, Reed MG (1998) Unbiased stereology. Three-dimensional measurement in microscopy. Bios, Oxford, pp 39–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu N, Downey DB, Fenster A, Ladak HM (2003) Prostate boundary segmentation from 3D ultrasound images. Med Phys 30:1648–1659

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong CW, Park HK, Hong SK, Byun SS, Lee HJ, Lee SE (2008) Comparison of prostate volume measured by transrectal ultrasonography and MRI with the actual prostate volume measured after radical prostatectomy. Urol Int 81(2):179–185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jonmarker S, Valdman A, Lindberg A, Hellström M, Egevad L (2006) Tissue shrinkage after fixation with formalin injection of prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch 449:297–301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jørgen H, Gundersen G, Boysen M, Reith A (1981) Comparison of semiautomatic digitizer-tablet and simple point counting performance in morphometry. Virchows Arch B Cell Pathol Incl Mol Pathol 37:317–325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lee JS, Chung BH (2007) Transrectal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in the estimation of prostate volume as compared with radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol Int 78:323–327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Littrup PJ, Williams CR, Egglin TK, Kane RA (1991) Determination of prostate volume with transrectal US for cancer screening. II. Accuracy of in vitro and in vivo techniques. Radiology 179:49–53

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu O, Cruz-Orive LM, Hoppeler H, Weibel ER (1981) Measuring error and sampling variation in stereology: comparison of the efficiency of various methods for planar image analysis. J Microsc 121:75–88

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mazonakis M, Karampekios S, Damilakis J, Voloudaki A, Gourtsoyiannis N (2004) Stereological estimation of total intracranial volume on CT images. Eur Radiol 14:1285–1290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Myschetzky PS, Suburu RE, Kelly BS Jr, Wilson ML, Chen SC, Lee F (1991) Determination of prostate gland volume by transrectal ultrasound: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol 137:107–111

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CE (2000) Assessment of morphometric measurements of prostate carcinoma volume. Cancer 89:1056–1064

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pache JC, Roberts N, Vock P, Zimmermann A, Cruz-Orive LM (1993) Vertical LM sectioning and parallel CT scanning designs for stereology: application to human lung. J Microsc 170:9–24

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roehrborn CG (1998) Accurate determination of prostate size via digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasound. Urology 51:19–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahin B, Ergur H (2006) Assessment of the optimum section thickness for the estimation of liver volume using magnetic resonance images: a stereological gold standard study. Eur J Radiol J 57:96–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahin B, Emirzeoglu M, Uzun A, Incesu L, Bek Y, Bilgic S, Kaplan S (2003) Unbiased estimation of the liver volume by the Cavalieri principle using magnetic resonance images. Eur J Radiol 47:164–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schned AR, Wheeler KJ, Hodorowski K, Heaney JA, Ernstoff MS, Amdur RJ, Harris RD (1996) Tissue-shrinkage correction factor in the calculation of prostate cancer volume. Am J Surg Pathol 20:1501–1506

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sosna J, Rofsky NM, Gaston SM, DeWolf WC, Lenkinski RE (2003) Determinations of prostate volume at 3-Tesla using an external phased array coil: comparison to pathologic specimens. Acad Radiol 10:846–853

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Terris MK, Stamey TA (1991) Determination of prostate volume by transrectal ultrasound. J Urol 145:985–987

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Watanabe H, Kaiho H, Tanaka M, Terasawa Y (1971) Diagnostic application of ultrasonotomography to the prostate. Invest Urol 8:548–559

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Dr. Marta García-Fiñana, Prof. Kenan Aycan, and Prof. Harun Ulger for skilful technical assistance. We thank Dr. Ahmet Öztürk for statistical analysis. Author contributions: the authors of this paper contributed to this research as follows: initial conception and design (N.A., M.S., T.U., E.U., M.C., F.Ö.); administrative, technical, or material support (N.A., E.U., T.U.); acquisition of data (N.A., M.S., T.U., E.U.); laboratory analysis and interpretation of data (N.A., M.S., M.C., F.Ö.); drafting of the manuscript (N.A., T.E., E.U.); critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content (N.A., M.S., T.U., E.U., M.C.). The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily their institutions or sources of support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anatomy, Erciyes University School of Medicine, 38000, Kayseri, Turkey

    Niyazi Acer, Tolga Ertekin, Erdoğan Unur & Mahmut Çay

  2. Department of Urology, Erciyes University School of Medicine, Kayseri, Turkey

    Mustafa Sofikerim

  3. Department of Pathology, Erciyes University School of Medicine, Kayseri, Turkey

    Figen Öztürk

Authors
  1. Niyazi Acer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mustafa Sofikerim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tolga Ertekin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Erdoğan Unur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mahmut Çay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Figen Öztürk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niyazi Acer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Acer, N., Sofikerim, M., Ertekin, T. et al. Assessment of in vivo calculation with ultrasonography compared to physical sections in vitro: a stereological study of prostate volumes. Anat Sci Int 86, 78–85 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12565-010-0090-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12565-010-0090-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation