Automatic prostate volume estimation in transabdominal ultrasound images.
[INTRODUCTION] Prostate cancer is a major health concern requiring accurate and accessible methods for early detection and risk stratification.
APA
Natali T, Kurucz LM, et al. (2025). Automatic prostate volume estimation in transabdominal ultrasound images.. European journal of radiology, 191, 112274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2025.112274
MLA
Natali T, et al.. "Automatic prostate volume estimation in transabdominal ultrasound images.." European journal of radiology, vol. 191, 2025, pp. 112274.
PMID
40614658
Abstract
[INTRODUCTION] Prostate cancer is a major health concern requiring accurate and accessible methods for early detection and risk stratification. Prostate volume (PV) is a key parameter in multivariate risk assessment, traditionally measured using transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). While TRUS provides precise measurements, its invasive nature affects patient comfort. Transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) offers a non-invasive alternative but is limited by lower image quality and operator dependence. This study presents a deep-learning-based framework for automatic PV estimation using TAUS, aiming to improve non-invasive prostate cancer risk stratification.
[METHODS] A dataset of TAUS videos from 100 patients (median age 67, 95-percentile range 55-81.2) was curated, with expert-delineated prostate boundaries and diameter calculations as ground truth. The framework integrates deep-learning models for prostate segmentation in both axial and sagittal planes, automatic diameter estimation, and PV calculation. Segmentation performance was evaluated using Dice correlation coefficient (%) and Hausdorff distance (mm), while volume estimation accuracy was assessed through volumetric error (mL).
[RESULTS] The axial model outperformed the sagittal model, achieving a Dice score of 0.76 ± 0.16 versus 0.68 ± 0.21, a Dice-MidPlane of 0.91 ± 0.06 versus 0.83. ± 0.10, and a Hausdorff distance of 6.21 ± 4.33 mm versus 7.93 ± 4.27 mm. The framework estimated PV with a mean volumetric error of -2.1 mL (95 % limits of agreement: -16.9 to 21.1 mL), resulting in a relative error smaller than 25 %.
[CONCLUSION] These findings highlight the potential of deep learning for accurate, non-invasive PV estimation, supporting improved prostate cancer risk assessment.
[METHODS] A dataset of TAUS videos from 100 patients (median age 67, 95-percentile range 55-81.2) was curated, with expert-delineated prostate boundaries and diameter calculations as ground truth. The framework integrates deep-learning models for prostate segmentation in both axial and sagittal planes, automatic diameter estimation, and PV calculation. Segmentation performance was evaluated using Dice correlation coefficient (%) and Hausdorff distance (mm), while volume estimation accuracy was assessed through volumetric error (mL).
[RESULTS] The axial model outperformed the sagittal model, achieving a Dice score of 0.76 ± 0.16 versus 0.68 ± 0.21, a Dice-MidPlane of 0.91 ± 0.06 versus 0.83. ± 0.10, and a Hausdorff distance of 6.21 ± 4.33 mm versus 7.93 ± 4.27 mm. The framework estimated PV with a mean volumetric error of -2.1 mL (95 % limits of agreement: -16.9 to 21.1 mL), resulting in a relative error smaller than 25 %.
[CONCLUSION] These findings highlight the potential of deep learning for accurate, non-invasive PV estimation, supporting improved prostate cancer risk assessment.
MeSH Terms
Humans; Male; Aged; Prostatic Neoplasms; Ultrasonography; Middle Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Deep Learning; Prostate; Organ Size; Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted; Reproducibility of Results