Materials and Methods: The characteristics transrectal ultrasound volume, pathological prostate weight and dimensions in 181 patients were entered into an electronic spread sheet. Pathological and transrectal ultrasound volume was estimated using the standard ellipsoid formula, width X height X length X pi/6. In 87 of the 181 cases transrectal ultrasound dimensions were compared to pathological dimensions.

Results: Using pathologically determined dimensions the ellipsoid formula accurately (+/- 10%) predicted weight in 26.5% of the cases vs 13.3% by

ultrasound. Transrectal ultrasound underestimated it by greater than 30% in 55% of cases and overestimated (greater than 10%) it in only 6.4%. Small vs large gland weight did not Belnacasan cost predict less underestimation. For prostate weight less than 30, 30 to 60 and more than 60 gm transrectal ultrasound underestimated by greater than 20% in 22.2%, 24.7% and 25.7% of cases, respectively. Paired analysis of transrectal ultrasound measurements and pathological dimensions revealed that transrectal ultrasound length was accurate (4.4 vs 4.3 cm) and had a good correlation with prostate weight. Height was

underestimated (3.2 vs 3.7 cm) but it correlated with weight. Width was inaccurate (4.8 vs 5.2 cm) and it correlated poorly with weight. Age, prostate specific antigen, stage, Gleason score, American Urological Association symptom score and body mass index were not predictive of the underestimation. Displaced water volume in cc per prostate weight in gin showed a correlation of 0.997.

Conclusions: The primary underlying factor for inconsistency with www.selleckchem.com/products/azd-1208.html volume estimation of prostate weight appears to be the ellipsoid formula since pathologically determined dimensions still had a 75% error. BGJ398 molecular weight Independent of gland size the transrectal ultrasound correlation underestimated weight 80%

of the time by greater than 30% in 55% of patients. Contrary to previous reports, transrectal ultrasound width and not length is the least reliable factor.”
“Purpose: We investigated the ability of a 20-core prostate biopsy protocol to enhance the prostate cancer diagnosis rate.

Materials and Methods: We compared the diagnosis rate of prostate biopsies in 2 groups of consecutive patients, including group 1-10 cores and group 2-20 cores. The prostate specific antigen range in the 2 groups was 3 to 30 ng/ml and biopsies were performed because of increased prostate specific antigen (more than 3 ng/ml) and/or abnormal digital rectal examination. To analyze the results we divided each group into 3 subgroups according to prostate specific antigen, including group 1-3 to less than 6 ng/ml, group 2-6 or greater to less than 10 ng/ml and group 3-10 or greater to up to 30 ng/ml. Multivariate analysis was performed to assess the difference in the diagnosis rate among the subgroups according to the number of cores taken.

Results: The percent of positive biopsies was 39.7% in group 1 and 51.7% in group 2.