Med Image Anal 15:226–237Īldoj N, Biavati F, Michallek F, Stober S, Dewey M (2020) Automatic prostate and prostate zones segmentation of magnetic resonance images using DenseNet-like U-net. Mahdavi SS, Chng N, Spadinger I, Morris WJ, Salcudean SE (2011) Semi-automatic segmentation for prostate interventions. Jeong CW, Park HK, Hong, 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. Diagn Interv Radiol 20:229–233īulman JC, Toth R, Patel AD et al (2012) Automated computer-derived prostate volumes from MR imaging data: comparison with radiologist-derived MR imaging and pathologic specimen volumes. Garvey B, Türkbey B, Truong H, Bernardo M, Periaswamy S, Choyke PL (2014) Clinical value of prostate segmentation and volume determination on MRI in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA et al (2019) Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Paterson NR, Lavallée LT, Nguyen LN et al (2016) Prostate volume estimations using magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound compared to radical prostatectomy specimens. Lee JS, Chung BH (2007) Transrectal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in the estimation of prostate volume as compared with radical prostatectomy specimens. Rahmouni A, Yang A, Tempany CMC et al (1992) Accuracy of in-vivo assessment of prostatic volume by MRI and transrectal ultrasonography. Urol Clin North Am 20:653–663ĭistler FA, Radtke JP, Bonekamp D et al (2017) The value of PSA density in combination with PI-RADS TM for the accuracy of prostate cancer prediction. Role in patient evaluation and management. Seaman E, Whang M, Olsson CA, Katz A, Cooner WH, Benson MC (1993) PSA density (PSAD). The traditional ellipsoid formula tends to overestimate prostate volume.īenson MC, Whang IS, Pantuck A et al (1992) Prostate specific antigen density: a means of distinguishing benign prostatic hypertrophy and prostate cancer.Ellipsoid formulas are accurate and reproducible but with higher variability between readers.Manual planimetry used for prostate volume estimation is robust and reproducible, with the lowest variability between readers.Precise anatomic landmarks as defined with the BPEF led to a more accurate PV estimation, but also to a higher variability. TEF showed a high degree of concordance with MPM but a slight overestimation of PV. MPM is a robust method for PV assessment and PSAd calculation, with the lowest variability. PV measurements using ellipsoid formulas and MPM are highly reproducible. Inter-rater PV variation led to discrepancies in classification according to the clinical criterion of PSAd > 0.15 ng/mL for 2 patients (5%), 7 patients (17.5%), and 9 patients (22.5%) when using MPM, TEF, and BPEF, respectively. MPM had the highest inter-rater reproducibility (ICC = 0.999). Both intra- (ICC > 0.90) and inter-rater (ICC > 0.90) reproducibility were excellent. Both TEF and BPEF overestimated PV relative to MPM, with the former presenting significant differences (+ 1.91 cm 3, IQ =, p val = 0.03). Intra- and inter-rater variability was calculated using the mixed model–based intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). PV and corresponding PSA density (PSAd) were estimated on 3D T2-weighted MRI (3 T) by 7 independent radiologists using the traditional ellipsoid formula (TEF), the newer biproximate ellipsoid formula (BPEF), and the manual planimetry method (MPM) used as ground truth. Methodsįorty treatment-naive patients who underwent prostate MRI were selected from a local database. The objective of our multi-rater study was to compare intra- and inter-rater variability of PV from manual planimetry and ellipsoid formulas. A reliable estimation of prostate volume (PV) is essential to prostate cancer management.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |