Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
New technique for prostate volume assessment
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
New technique for prostate volume assessment
Do you wish to request the book?
New technique for prostate volume assessment
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
New technique for prostate volume assessment
2014
Overview
Purpose
The prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) helps distinguish between benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and prostate cancer. Accurate prostate volume (PV) assessment is necessary for PSAD calculation and both BPH diagnosis and treatment response monitoring; therefore, accurate PV measurement is increasingly becoming an essential step in the urology.
Methods
Magnetic resonance imaging was used for PV estimation. A new technique based on single-class support-vector machines (S SVM) for accurate PV estimation was realized. Three estimation methods were compared; method 1: planimetry (reference), method 2: S SVM based, and method 3: prolate ellipsoid.
Results
Method 1 and method 2 depict a strong correlation (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient
ρ
= 0.965,
p
> 0.001). The interrater reliability for method 1 and method 2 readings as expressed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.975 (
p
> 0.001). Comparison between method 3 and the two other methods shows
ρ
= 0.873 (
p
> 0.001), and
ρ
= 0.795 (
p
> 0.001), respectively. ICC was 0.54 and 0.505, respectively. The mean difference between method 1 and method 2 was −0.05 ml. The limits of agreement with the 95 % confidence interval were −3.8 to 3.7 ml. Comparing method 3 and the two other methods shows a worse agreement with mean difference of 8.6 ml (95 % confidence interval of 1.0–16.2 ml) and 8.6 ml (95 % confidence interval of −0.7 to 18.0 ml), respectively.
Conclusions
The prostate volumes obtained by our technique agreed excellently with the planimetry (reference) method. This new technique would be clinically useful for urologists in prostate volumetric analysis.
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg,Springer Nature B.V
Subject
