Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42803939›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2026

MRI-derived prostate volume assessment: manual segmentation versus two-axis ellipsoid approximation and its implications for PSA density.

Larissa Gluesing, Sophie Potts, Lars Knieper, Francesco Giganti, Igor Tsaur, Sebastian Gassenmaier, Josephine Berger, Konstantin Nikolaou, Annemarie Uhlig, Johannes Uhlig

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Larissa GluesingDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany.
Sophie PottsChair of Spatial Data Science and Statistical Learning, Georg-August-University Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany.
Lars KnieperChair of Spatial Data Science and Statistical Learning, Georg-August-University Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany.
Francesco GigantiDivision of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Igor TsaurDepartment of Urology, Tübingen University Hospital, Eberhard Karls University Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Sebastian GassenmaierDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Tuebingen University Hospital, Eberhard Karls University Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Josephine BergerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Tuebingen University Hospital, Eberhard Karls University Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Konstantin NikolaouDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Tuebingen University Hospital, Eberhard Karls University Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Annemarie Uhlig *Department of Urology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany.
Johannes Uhlig *Campus Institute Data Science (CIDAS), Georg-August-University Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany. johannes.uhlig@med.uni-tuebingen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3557-3194

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate how accurately prostate volume estimated with the ellipsoid formula matches manual segmentation (reference standard) and to assess whether an individualized, volume-dependent adjustment of the ellipsoid weighting factor improves performance.

methodsIn this prospective study, patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa) who underwent 3 T multiparametric MRI (T1WI, T2WI, DWI, DCE) between January 2022 and June 2023 were included. PSA values were obtained at imaging or within the preceding 4 weeks. Reference prostate volumes were derived from manual segmentation of all axial T2-weighted slices. Ellipsoid-based volumes were calculated per PI-RADS recommendations from sagittal and axial T2-weighted images using A × B × C × 0.52.

resultsOverall, 328 patients were analyzed (median age 68 years), including 196 without and 132 with PCa. Ellipsoid-based volumes showed excellent agreement with manual segmentation (ICC = 0.985; mean absolute difference 5.5 cc). Differences were larger in prostates > 80 cc, where the ellipsoid method tended to underestimate volume. Optimal volume-dependent weighting factors ranged from 0.50 to 0.54, but statistical modeling with variable weighting factors did not significantly improve model performance. For PSAd cut-offs of 0.1, 0.15, and 0.2 ng/mL/cc, the ellipsoid approximation achieved sensitivities of 0.86-0.95 and specificities of 0.88-0.97 compared with manual segmentation.

conclusionManual segmentation and ellipsoid-based approximation show good agreement, underscoring the practical utility of the ellipsoid approximation for routine prostate volume assessment. While inaccuracies increase for larger glands, individualized weighting offers no meaningful benefit, and diagnostic performance for PSA density remains largely unaffected. KEY POINTS: Question Does the fast PI-RADS ellipsoid method estimate MRI prostate volume accurately versus manual segmentation, and do errors affect PSA density decisions? Findings In 328 men, ellipsoid volumes correlated strongly with segmentation (ρ = 0.98), underestimated larger glands (> 80 cc), and coefficient tuning added no meaningful improvement. Clinical relevance Ellipsoid-based volumetry provides a rapid, reliable basis for mpMRI prostate and PSA density assessment in routine clinical practice, supporting biopsy and active-surveillance decisions without time-consuming segmentation, while recognizing slightly higher error in very large prostates.

Indexed as

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imagingProstate specific antigenProstatic neoplasms

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.