Inter-imaging accuracy of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and transrectal ultrasound in measuring prostate volume compared to the anatomic prostatic weight.

To evaluate the accuracy of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared to the reference standard of the post-surgical anatomic prostatic weight (APW). A total of 349 patients from two institutions were included. The CT and MRI dimensions, and TRUS-reported prostate volumes (PV) were obtained. The prolate ellipsoid formula was used to calculate PV. Cross-sectional measurements were evaluated and compared to the reported post-surgical pathology measurements and calculated pathology volume (path PV). A basic statistical analysis was performed using the Pearson correlation, Bland-Altman analysis, and Passing-Bablok regression. A total of 198 patients were included in the MRI group, 118 in the CT group, 295 in the TRUS group, and 51 in the all-inclusive common cohort. The MRI PV demonstrated a good to excellent correlation with the APW (r=0.79). The CT PV demonstrated a good correlation with APW (r=0.78). The TRUS PV showed a correlation with APW (r=0.67). The correlations identified in each individual group held true in the common cohort as well. The path PV showed an excellent correlation with APW (r=0.87), followed by MRI PV (r=0.81), then CT PV (r=0.73), and lastly TRUS PV (r=0.71). MRI and CT are equally effective in assessing the PV, and they can be readily utilized to guide the benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) management without repeating in-office TRUS. This is not only cost-effective, but also eliminates patient anxiety and discomfort.