Publication:
Which is the best radiological imaging method for predicting actual prostate weight?

dc.contributor.coauthorGok, Bahri
dc.contributor.coauthorHajiyev, Elchin
dc.contributor.coauthorHamidi, Nurullah
dc.contributor.coauthorKoc, Erdem
dc.contributor.coauthorAsil, Erem
dc.contributor.coauthorArdicoglu, Arslan
dc.contributor.coauthorAtmaca, Ali Fuat
dc.contributor.coauthorKeseroglu, Bugra Bilge
dc.contributor.departmentN/A
dc.contributor.kuauthorCanda, Abdullah Erdem
dc.contributor.kuprofileFaculty Member
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteSchool of Medicine
dc.contributor.yokid116202
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-09T23:59:56Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.description.abstractIn this study, we compared the weight of the prostate specimen removed after robotic radical prostatectomy with the prostate weight measured pre-operatively by four different imaging modalities. Pre-operative prostate weight before robotic radical prostatectomy was measured by Transabdominal Ultrasonography (TAUS), Transrectal Ultrasonography (TRUS), Abdominal Tomography (CT) and MultiparametricProstate Magnetic Resonance imaging (mpMRI). of the 170 patients enrolled in the study, the mean age was 65.2 +/- 7.08 (46-84) years and mean prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 9.6 +/- 7.7 (1.8-50). The mean post-operative actual prostate weight was 63.1 +/- 30 gr. The mean pre-operative prostate volumes measured by TAUS, TRUS, CT and MPMRI were 64.5 +/- 28.5, 49.1 +/- 30.6, 54.5 +/- 30.5 and 68.7 +/- 31.7 ml, respectively (p < .001). Post-operative actual prostate weight correlated with prostate weight measured by TAUS, TRUS, CT and mpMRI (r coefficient 0.776, 0.802, 0.768 and 0.825 respectively). The best of these was mpMRI. Although prostate weight measured by different imaging methods has a high correlation to predict actual prostate weight, actual prostate weight is best predicted by measurements with mpMRI. However, errors and deviations that may occur with these imaging methods should be taken into consideration.
dc.description.indexedbyWoS
dc.description.indexedbyScopus
dc.description.issue10
dc.description.openaccessYES
dc.description.publisherscopeInternational
dc.description.volume52
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/and.13770
dc.identifier.eissn1439-0272
dc.identifier.issn0303-4569
dc.identifier.quartileQ3
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85088557281
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/and.13770
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14288/15727
dc.identifier.wos552784500001
dc.keywordsActual prostate weight
dc.keywordsEstimated prostate volume
dc.keywordsMultiparametric prostate MR
dc.keywordsProstate
dc.keywordsProstatectomy transrectal ultrasound
dc.keywordsVolume determination
dc.keywordsEllipsoid formula
dc.keywordsMRI
dc.keywordsAccuracy
dc.keywordsMass
dc.languageEnglish
dc.publisherWiley
dc.sourceAndrologia
dc.subjectAndrology
dc.titleWhich is the best radiological imaging method for predicting actual prostate weight?
dc.typeJournal Article
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.contributor.authorid0000-0002-5196-653X
local.contributor.kuauthorCanda, Abdullah Erdem

Files