Abstract
Rationale and Objectives To compare the a commercially available automatic and manually adjusted segmentation software program (DynaCAD ®) to two ellipsoid volume methods using T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
Material and Methods This is a retrospective IRB-approved study of 146 patients randomly selected from 1600 consecutive men referred for T2-weighted MRI. All measurements were performed by a single expert senior radiologist. Total prostate volume was calculated using automatic DynaCAD ® software (RCAD), manually adjusted DynaCAD ® (ACAD), traditional ellipsoid method (TE) and a new alternative biproximate ellipsoid method (BE). Results were assessed with ANOVA and linear regression.
Results Mean volumes for RCAD, ACAD, BE and TE were 61.5, 58.4, 56, and 53.2 respectively. ANOVA showed no difference of the means (p> 0.05.) Linear regression showed a coefficient of determination (r 2) between ACAD and TE of 0.92 and between ACAD and BE of 0.90. Using the planigraphic-based segmented ACAD as the “gold’ standard, RCAD overestimated volume by 5%. TE and BE underestimated prostatic volume by 4% and 9% respectively. ACAD processing time was 4.5 to 9.5 minutes (mean=6.6 min.) compared to 1.5 to 3.0 minutes (mean=2.3 min.) for prolate ellipsoid methods.
Conclusion Manually adjusted MRI T2-weighted segmentation is likely the most accurate measure of total prostate volume. DynaCAD appears to fulfill that function, but manual adjustment of automatic misregistration of boundaries is necessary. ACAD and RCAD are best applied to research use. Ellipsoid methods are faster, more convenient, nearly as accurate and more practical for clinical use.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
NA
Funding Statement
No external funding was used.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Institutional IRB and Ethics Committee (Ethsirb) 2018 approved.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data is available from <wasse001@umn.edu> upon any reasonable request.
