Interexaminer reliability and validity of a three-dimensional model to assess prostate volume by digital rectal examination

Claus Roehrborn, Scott Sech, Juan Montoya, Thomas Rhodes, Cynthia J. Girman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

41 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives. To evaluate the interexaminer reliability and accuracy compared with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) of a three-dimensional (3D) model and other scales to improve the estimation of prostate volume by digital rectal examination (DRE). Methods. Volunteers from a urology clinic (n = 121) were examined independently by three examiners with different levels of experience in randomized order. During DRE, the examiners estimated the prostate size in increments of 5 g, using various rating scales and a 3D sizing model, without access to the findings of the other investigators. TRUS was then performed by each examiner. Results. The 121 volunteers were 39 to 82 years old, with a mean ± SD total TRUS prostate size of 35.9 ± 27.2 g. The DRE size estimates ranged from 15 to 100 g across all examiners and patients. The interexaminer reliability across examiners for the best DRE prostate size estimates (in grams) was 0.78 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 0.84), and the correlation coefficients (rs) with the TRUS volume ranged from 0.61 to 0.72 for the three examiners. A 3D model showed good reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 0.93), and correlated well with the TRUS volume (rs = 0.67 to 0.75). Other scales showed fair reliability (0.58 to 0.68) and correlated with the TRUS measurements (0.57 to 0.67). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to identify prostate volumes greater than 40 g ranged from 0.78 to 0.90 for DRE estimates (in grams) and 0.69 to 0.89 for the 3D model. Conclusions. DRE size estimates and TRUS volume were moderately to highly correlated in men without prostate cancer. A 3D sizing model showed comparable reliability and correlation with TRUS. Although the DRE estimates generally tend to underestimate the TRUS-measured prostate volume, these tools may be useful in identifying men with enlarged prostate glands.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1087-1092
Number of pages6
JournalUrology
Volume57
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2001

Fingerprint

Digital Rectal Examination
Reproducibility of Results
Prostate
Volunteers
Confidence Intervals
Urology
ROC Curve
Prostatic Neoplasms
Research Personnel

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Interexaminer reliability and validity of a three-dimensional model to assess prostate volume by digital rectal examination. / Roehrborn, Claus; Sech, Scott; Montoya, Juan; Rhodes, Thomas; Girman, Cynthia J.

In: Urology, Vol. 57, No. 6, 06.2001, p. 1087-1092.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Roehrborn, Claus ; Sech, Scott ; Montoya, Juan ; Rhodes, Thomas ; Girman, Cynthia J. / Interexaminer reliability and validity of a three-dimensional model to assess prostate volume by digital rectal examination. In: Urology. 2001 ; Vol. 57, No. 6. pp. 1087-1092.
@article{e0baa5cff9a046568abfad66275904fb,
title = "Interexaminer reliability and validity of a three-dimensional model to assess prostate volume by digital rectal examination",
abstract = "Objectives. To evaluate the interexaminer reliability and accuracy compared with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) of a three-dimensional (3D) model and other scales to improve the estimation of prostate volume by digital rectal examination (DRE). Methods. Volunteers from a urology clinic (n = 121) were examined independently by three examiners with different levels of experience in randomized order. During DRE, the examiners estimated the prostate size in increments of 5 g, using various rating scales and a 3D sizing model, without access to the findings of the other investigators. TRUS was then performed by each examiner. Results. The 121 volunteers were 39 to 82 years old, with a mean ± SD total TRUS prostate size of 35.9 ± 27.2 g. The DRE size estimates ranged from 15 to 100 g across all examiners and patients. The interexaminer reliability across examiners for the best DRE prostate size estimates (in grams) was 0.78 (95{\%} confidence interval 0.70 to 0.84), and the correlation coefficients (rs) with the TRUS volume ranged from 0.61 to 0.72 for the three examiners. A 3D model showed good reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.86, 95{\%} confidence interval 0.75 to 0.93), and correlated well with the TRUS volume (rs = 0.67 to 0.75). Other scales showed fair reliability (0.58 to 0.68) and correlated with the TRUS measurements (0.57 to 0.67). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to identify prostate volumes greater than 40 g ranged from 0.78 to 0.90 for DRE estimates (in grams) and 0.69 to 0.89 for the 3D model. Conclusions. DRE size estimates and TRUS volume were moderately to highly correlated in men without prostate cancer. A 3D sizing model showed comparable reliability and correlation with TRUS. Although the DRE estimates generally tend to underestimate the TRUS-measured prostate volume, these tools may be useful in identifying men with enlarged prostate glands.",
author = "Claus Roehrborn and Scott Sech and Juan Montoya and Thomas Rhodes and Girman, {Cynthia J.}",
year = "2001",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1016/S0090-4295(01)00965-7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "57",
pages = "1087--1092",
journal = "Urology",
issn = "0090-4295",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Interexaminer reliability and validity of a three-dimensional model to assess prostate volume by digital rectal examination

AU - Roehrborn, Claus

AU - Sech, Scott

AU - Montoya, Juan

AU - Rhodes, Thomas

AU - Girman, Cynthia J.

PY - 2001/6

Y1 - 2001/6

N2 - Objectives. To evaluate the interexaminer reliability and accuracy compared with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) of a three-dimensional (3D) model and other scales to improve the estimation of prostate volume by digital rectal examination (DRE). Methods. Volunteers from a urology clinic (n = 121) were examined independently by three examiners with different levels of experience in randomized order. During DRE, the examiners estimated the prostate size in increments of 5 g, using various rating scales and a 3D sizing model, without access to the findings of the other investigators. TRUS was then performed by each examiner. Results. The 121 volunteers were 39 to 82 years old, with a mean ± SD total TRUS prostate size of 35.9 ± 27.2 g. The DRE size estimates ranged from 15 to 100 g across all examiners and patients. The interexaminer reliability across examiners for the best DRE prostate size estimates (in grams) was 0.78 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 0.84), and the correlation coefficients (rs) with the TRUS volume ranged from 0.61 to 0.72 for the three examiners. A 3D model showed good reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 0.93), and correlated well with the TRUS volume (rs = 0.67 to 0.75). Other scales showed fair reliability (0.58 to 0.68) and correlated with the TRUS measurements (0.57 to 0.67). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to identify prostate volumes greater than 40 g ranged from 0.78 to 0.90 for DRE estimates (in grams) and 0.69 to 0.89 for the 3D model. Conclusions. DRE size estimates and TRUS volume were moderately to highly correlated in men without prostate cancer. A 3D sizing model showed comparable reliability and correlation with TRUS. Although the DRE estimates generally tend to underestimate the TRUS-measured prostate volume, these tools may be useful in identifying men with enlarged prostate glands.

AB - Objectives. To evaluate the interexaminer reliability and accuracy compared with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) of a three-dimensional (3D) model and other scales to improve the estimation of prostate volume by digital rectal examination (DRE). Methods. Volunteers from a urology clinic (n = 121) were examined independently by three examiners with different levels of experience in randomized order. During DRE, the examiners estimated the prostate size in increments of 5 g, using various rating scales and a 3D sizing model, without access to the findings of the other investigators. TRUS was then performed by each examiner. Results. The 121 volunteers were 39 to 82 years old, with a mean ± SD total TRUS prostate size of 35.9 ± 27.2 g. The DRE size estimates ranged from 15 to 100 g across all examiners and patients. The interexaminer reliability across examiners for the best DRE prostate size estimates (in grams) was 0.78 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 0.84), and the correlation coefficients (rs) with the TRUS volume ranged from 0.61 to 0.72 for the three examiners. A 3D model showed good reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 0.93), and correlated well with the TRUS volume (rs = 0.67 to 0.75). Other scales showed fair reliability (0.58 to 0.68) and correlated with the TRUS measurements (0.57 to 0.67). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to identify prostate volumes greater than 40 g ranged from 0.78 to 0.90 for DRE estimates (in grams) and 0.69 to 0.89 for the 3D model. Conclusions. DRE size estimates and TRUS volume were moderately to highly correlated in men without prostate cancer. A 3D sizing model showed comparable reliability and correlation with TRUS. Although the DRE estimates generally tend to underestimate the TRUS-measured prostate volume, these tools may be useful in identifying men with enlarged prostate glands.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034996370&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034996370&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0090-4295(01)00965-7

DO - 10.1016/S0090-4295(01)00965-7

M3 - Article

C2 - 11377314

AN - SCOPUS:0034996370

VL - 57

SP - 1087

EP - 1092

JO - Urology

JF - Urology

SN - 0090-4295

IS - 6

ER -