BackgroundProstatic diseases are common and mostly associated with enlargement of the accessory gland. Thus, determining the prostate size has become a main criterion for evaluating prostate health status. Computed tomography (CT) is recommended as a beneficial tool for evaluating prostate size, morphology and surrounding tissues. The purpose of this study was to establish an accurate procedure for volume estimation and afterwards evaluate the prostate volume in CT. Data of 95 dogs were analysed (58 male intact, 37 male neutered) using the slice addition technique with the Amira program. Accuracy of volumetric measurements by CT was validated by comparing them with those of phantoms of known volume. Patients were grouped according to age (< 4 yrs., 4–8 yrs., > 8 yrs) and prostate morphology in CT (H = homogeneous, I = inhomogeneous, C = cystic). The length of the sixth lumbar vertebra was measured to relate prostate volume to body size. This ratio was generated to compare prostate volume between the groups, irrespective of body size (ratio volume = Rv).ResultsA high correlation between the CT-derived and phantom volume was found. Overall, the mean prostate volume was 58.6 cm3. The mean ratio volume was 1.3 in intact male dogs, this being significantly higher than in neutered dogs (0.7). The lowest ratio volume values were found in group H for intact (Rv = 0.9) and neutered dogs (Rv = 0.6), followed by group I (intact: Rv = 1.1; neutered: Rv = 0.7) and C (intact: Rv = 1.4; neutered: Rv = 0.8). The length of the sixth lumbar vertebra was well correlated with the prostate volume (intact: r = 0.63, p < 0.001; neutered: r = 0.48, p = 0.003), while age exhibited a correlation only in intact dogs (r = 0.52, p < 0.001).ConclusionThe present study is pioneering in applying a slice addition technique to volumetric measurements of the prostate gland in CT, resulting in a highly precise method. Volumetric measurements of the canine prostate gland in CT images provide information about the prostate structure, castration status, age and body size of the patients. Therefore, prostate volume is a relevant parameter for evaluating prostate health status.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12917-019-1778-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundProstatic diseases in intact male dogs are common. However, studies about the computed tomographic (CT) examination of the prostate in dogs are rare. The aim of the present study was to evaluate age related-changes in the canine prostate with the help of the CT and to evaluate whether measuring Hounsfield Units (HUs) in different morphological conditions of the prostate is of diagnostic value.Fifty pre- and post-contrast CT scans of the prostate of dogs were evaluated and divided into three groups according to the tissue structure: Group1 dogs with homogenous prostate tissue (16/50); group 2 with prostate cysts (26/50) and group 3 with inhomogeneous prostate tissue (8/50). The prostatic dimensions were measured and the ratio between length, height and width and the sixth lumbar vertebra was calculated. Median values of prostatic attenuation measured in HUs, using regions of interests (ROIs) were determined on pre- and post- contrast scans over the whole length of the prostate. The results were compared to the dog’s age.Furthermore, the CT Images were compared with the results of ultrasonography (47/50).ResultsOn pre-contrast scans HUs within ROIs placed in the prostate did not differ statistically significantly between the different morphological groups (1: 37.7; 2: 36.3; 3: 39.8 HU). HUs within on the post- contrast scans showed statistically significant differences between the groups. Group one had a mean density of 93.6 HU, group two had a mean density of 106.1 HU and group three had one of 138.2 HU. The prostatic size in the first group was smaller than in the other groups, whereas the largest prostates were found in the second group.In six cases the post-contrast CT scan showed results that differed from the ultrasound examination. Dogs had a homogenous tissue in ultrasonography while the CT scan revealed an inhomogeneous tissue structure.ConclusionsThe CT examination can be a beneficial diagnostic tool for examining the prostatic size and for evaluating the prostatic tissue. The different HUs reflected age-related changes and alterations in the prostate while measuring the density of the prostate. Contrast agent application enables a more specific analysis of the prostate to be carried out and for precise changes in tissue structure to be observed.

Background: Aim was to investigate age-dependent changes in the prostate of castrated dogs in computed tomographic (CT) examination. Thirty-six canine prostates were evaluated in pre-and post-contrast CT scans. Dogs were divided in groups with homogenous prostatic tissue (25/36) and with tissue alterations (11/36). Prostatic attenuation in Hounsfield Units (HU) and prostatic size were measured and a ratio of the prostatic size to the sixth lumbar vertebra was calculated. Additionally, the CT images of the prostate were compared with ultrasound examination. Results: In pre-contrast CT scans no significant differences were found in prostatic size between homogenous and altered prostatic tissue groups whereas prostatic attenuation differed significantly in post-contrast CT between these groups. The homogenous tissue pattern of homogeneous prostates could be confirmed in CT images and in ultrasound examination. Concerning prostates with alterations, the results differed between ultrasound and CT examination in four cases of 11 dogs with tissue alterations. Conclusions: CT is beneficial to examine the prostate of castrated dogs. The prostatic attenuation is characteristic for the prostatic morphology, which can vary due to ageing processes. Differences in attenuation and size can be found between prostates of castrated and intact dogs. Using contrast agent, CT can visualize prostatic alterations, which were not seen in ultrasound. The presented results should be considered preliminary until a study with larger sample size and histologic examination of the prostates is performed.

BackgroundSince most prostatic diseases are associated with the organ’s enlargement, evaluation of prostatic size is a main criterion in the diagnosis of prostatic state of health. While enlargement is a non-uniform process, volumetric measurements are believed to be advantageous to any single dimensional parameter for the diagnosis of prostatomegaly. In a previous study, volume was analysed with a slice addition technique (SAT), which was validated as highly accurate. Irrespective of high accuracy, SAT represents a complex and time-consuming procedure, which limits its clinical use. Thus, demand exists for more practical volume assessment methods. In this study, the prostatic volume of 95 canine patients (58 intact males, 37 neutered males) were analysed retrospectively by using the ellipsoid formula (Formula) and an imaging “wrap” function tool (Wrap) to help assess accuracy and applicability. Accuracy was checked against phantom measurements and results were compared to SAT measurements of the same patient pool obtained from a previously published paper. Patients were grouped according to prostatic structure (H = homogeneous, I = inhomogeneous, C = cystic) and volume using the SAT (volume group = vg: 1, 2 and 3).ResultsHigh correlation between the Formula or Wrap volume and the phantom volume was found, the values being higher for the Formula. Mean Formula volumes (vg 1: 2.2 cm3, vg 2: 14.5 cm3, vg 3: 109.4 cm3, respectively) were significantly underestimated, while mean Wrap volumes (vg 1: 3.8 cm3, vg 2: 19.5 cm3, vg 3: 159.2 cm3) were statistically equivalent to SAT measurements (vg 1: 3.1 cm3, vg 2: 18.6 cm3, vg 3: 157.2 cm3, respectively). Differences between Formula and SAT volumes ranged from 22.4–31.1%, while differences between Wrap and SAT volumes were highest in small prostates (vg 1: 22.1%) and fell with increasing prostatic size (vg 3: 1.3%).ConclusionThe Wrap function is highly accurate, less time-consuming and complex compared to SAT and could serve as beneficial tool for measuring prostatic volume in clinical routine after further validation in future studies. The Formula method cannot be recommended as an alternative for volumetric measurements of the prostate gland due to its underestimation of volumes compared to SAT results.