Authors

  • B. Gafurov
    Tashkent Medical Academy
  • Kh. Mirzarakhimov
    ashkent Medical Academy
  • A. Sabirov
  • B. Kupaysinov
    Tashkent Medical Academy

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.71337/inlibrary.uz.ijms.96634

Abstract

The article provides a historical background, presenting the approaches of morphologists and radiologists to the issue of the lobar structure of the prostate gland. Given the confusion regarding the term “central zone”, it is proposed to avoid its use in the conclusions of magnetic resonance and ultrasound examination. It is recommended to use the division of the gland into 39 sectors only when describing an MRI study of the prostate performed in accordance with the recommendations of the PI-RADSv2 system.

 

 

background image

w

w

w

.a

ca

de

m

icp

ub

lis

he

rs

.o

rg

Vo

lu

m

e

5,

M

ay

,2

02

5

,

M

ED

IC

AL

SC

IE

N

CE

S.

IM

PA

CT

FA

CT

OR

:7

,8

9

ZONAL ANATOMY OF THE PROSTATE GLAND

Gafurov B.K., Mirzarakhimov Kh.A., Sabirov A.A., Kupaysinov B.B.*

*Lecturer at the Department of General Surgery of the Chirchik branch of the Tashkent Medical

Academy

Annotation:

The article provides a historical background, presenting the approaches of

morphologists and radiologists to the issue of the lobar structure of the prostate gland. Given

the confusion regarding the term “central zone”, it is proposed to avoid its use in the

conclusions of magnetic resonance and ultrasound examination. It is recommended to use

the division of the gland into 39 sectors only when describing an MRI study of the prostate

performed in accordance with the recommendations of the PI-RADSv2 system.

Keywords:

prostate gland, zonal anatomy, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound

examination.

Introduction

When analyzing the conclusions formed based on the results of MRI studies of the male

pelvic organs, which are posted in the Unified Radiological Information System, it was

noted that the authors use an extremely wide range of terms characterizing the location of

the detected changes in the prostate gland. The gland is divided into lobes, zones, parts,

segments, sectors, regions, floors, thirds, ends, etc. This situation is largely determined by

the historically established interest of researchers to leave their contribution to history by

proposing a new classification of the gland structure. This led to significant confusion in the

terms found in the conclusions, and as a result - to an incorrect interpretation of the data of

the studies conducted.

History of the issue

There are many classifications of the lobar structure of the prostate gland. Urologists

traditionally distinguish 3 lobes - 2 lateral and a middle [1]. However, there were also other

classifications: division of the prostate gland into 5 lobes - anterior, posterior, middle and 2

lateral [2], into 6 lobes - 2 posterior, 2 internal and 2 lateral [3]. Currently, the most common

is the zonal anatomy of the prostate gland, developed by JE McNeal in 1981 [4]. He

identified 4 glandular zones (central, peripheral, 2 transitional) and 4 fibromuscular layers

(anterior fibromuscular stroma, preprostatic sphincter, longitudinal smooth muscle fibers of

the urethra and postprostatic sphincter). A schematic representation of the location of the

gland zones is shown in Fig. 1 and 2.

Based on the characteristics of the prostate radiographic picture, the classification proposed

by MD Rifkin et al. in 1990 [5] is of particular interest. According to it, the prostate gland is

divided into 3 parts. The anterior part corresponds to the fibromuscular stroma according to

the classification

JE McNeal. This fibrous zone is practically not visualized by TRUS and, since it does not

contain glandular tissue, does not play a role in the development of hyperplasia or prostate


background image

w

w

w

.a

ca

de

m

icp

ub

lis

he

rs

.o

rg

Vo

lu

m

e

5,

M

ay

,2

02

5

,

M

ED

IC

AL

SC

IE

N

CE

S.

IM

PA

CT

FA

CT

OR

:7

,8

9

cancer. The “outer gland” or the external part of the gland is a combination of peripheral and

central zones. The “inner gland” or the internal part of the gland includes transition zones,

the zone of periurethral glands and the zone of muscle layers of the internal sphincter of the

urethra. It would seem that this classification most logically defines the structure of the

prostate gland used to analyze echographic and MR images (Fig. 3), but it has not managed

to gain wide distribution in practical work. One of the reasons is the inconvenience of the

terms themselves - “inner” and “outergland” and the difficulty of translating them into

Russian. We proposed to translate the terms “inner” and “outergland” as the internal and

external parts of the gland (see above), which could lead to greater uniformity in the

conclusions [6].

As for MRI diagnostics of prostate cancer, an International Working Group was formed in

2007 to standardize it. The result of its work was the PI-RADS (Prostate Imaging and

Reporting and Data System), which was published as recommendations of the European

Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) in 2012 [7]. This system recommended using a

scheme for dividing the prostate gland into a number of segments. However, in 2015, the

second version of this system was published [8, 9]. This version proposes to describe the

localization of the suspected tumor based on the zonal anatomy according to McNeal and

dividing the gland into thirds: base, middle third, apex. Accordingly, the location of the

detected changes is tied to a scheme of 39 sectors: 36 sectors representing the prostate gland

itself, as well as the seminal vesicles and the membranous part of the urethra.

A

4

3

1

2

Fig. 1.

Schematic representation of the

zonal anatomy of the prostate gland

(according to JE McNeal, 1981). a – in

the sagittal plane; b – in the frontal

(coronal) plane. 1 – central zone; 2 –

peripheral zone; 3 – transition zones; 4

– anterior fibromuscular zone.

b

1

4

3

2


background image

w

w

w

.a

ca

de

m

icp

ub

lis

he

rs

.o

rg

Vo

lu

m

e

5,

M

ay

,2

02

5

,

M

ED

IC

AL

SC

IE

N

CE

S.

IM

PA

CT

FA

CT

OR

:7

,8

9

A

b

V

G

A

b

Fig. 2.

Schematic representation of the zonal anatomy of the prostate gland (according to JE

McNeal, 1981) in the coronal plane, the zones indicated by arrows are sequentially

“removed”. a – all zones of the gland are presented (arrow – anterior fibromuscular stroma);

b – arrow – peripheral zone; c – arrow – central zone; d – arrow – transition zones.

Fig. 3.

Division of the prostate into parts. a – schematic image; b – T2-weighted MR image,

axial plane; c – transverse TRUS image. Arrow – external part of the gland; thin arrow –

internal part of the gland.


background image

w

w

w

.a

ca

de

m

icp

ub

lis

he

rs

.o

rg

Vo

lu

m

e

5,

M

ay

,2

02

5

,

M

ED

IC

AL

SC

IE

N

CE

S.

IM

PA

CT

FA

CT

OR

:7

,8

9

SP

SP

Ur

A

PrK

b

MP

O

K

PrK

Fig. 4.

Zonal differentiation of the prostate on

normal T2-weighted MR images. a – axial plane; b – sagittal plane. Transitional zones are

outlined by a dotted line. UB – urinary bladder; RB – rectum; LB – pubic bone


background image

w

w

w

.a

ca

de

m

icp

ub

lis

he

rs

.o

rg

Vo

lu

m

e

5,

M

ay

,2

02

5

,

M

ED

IC

AL

SC

IE

N

CE

S.

IM

PA

CT

FA

CT

OR

:7

,8

9

Fig. 5.

T2-weighted MR image of the prostatein the coronal plane. The central zone has

the form of a cone directed from the base of the gland to the seminal tubercle (highlighted

by the dotted line). SP – seminal vesicles; Ur – membranous section of the urethra.

Discussion

The main problem, in our opinion, is the misunderstanding of the term “cent”“central zone of

the gland”. Many reports of practicing ultrasound and MR diagnostics specialists, moreover,

in scientific publications describe changes in the central zone of the prostate gland, implying

their localization in the transitional zones. The reason for this error is that the transitional

zones, which have a reduced MR signal intensity on T2WI, are located on axial sections as

if in the center of the prostate gland and are surrounded by a peripheral zone with a high

signal intensity on T2WI (Fig. 4). The true central zone (according to the McNeal

classification) can be identified almost only in young patients with no pronounced benign

hyperplasia when scanning in the coronal plane. According to the PI-RADSv2 system, it is

“the tissues of the gland surrounding the ejaculatory ducts from behind and above, from the

base of the gland to the seminal tubercle; it has the shape of an inverted cone, with the base

directed toward the base of the gland; contains more stroma than glandular tissue” (Fig. 5).

At the same time, the same PI-RADSv2 system postulates that cancer affecting the central

zone is a tumor spread from the peripheral zone. Thus, in practical work, examining patients

mainly of middle and older age groups, in the presence of benign prostatic hyperplasia, we

are unable to differentiate the “true” central zone of the prostate gland. However, if such a

study is carried out in accordance with the PI-RADSv2 recommendations, then this system

itself offers a solution to this terminological dispute.

MP

MP

PrK

PrK

Fig. 6.

Combined MR-TRUS image obtained using Fusion technology. The tumor lesion in

the peripheral zone of the right lobe at the level of the middle third of the gland is outlined

in oval. a – T2-weighted MR image in oblique axial plane. There is a clear differentiation of

the prostate gland into peripheral and transitional zones; b – transrectal ultrasound scanning

of the prostate in the transverse plane. The peripheral and transitional zones have similar


background image

w

w

w

.a

ca

de

m

icp

ub

lis

he

rs

.o

rg

Vo

lu

m

e

5,

M

ay

,2

02

5

,

M

ED

IC

AL

SC

IE

N

CE

S.

IM

PA

CT

FA

CT

OR

:7

,8

9

echogenicity and structure. The border between them is a faint hypoechoic band. UB –

urinary bladder; RC – rectum.

By using the proposed 39 sectors to localize pathological foci, we stop using the usual terms

based on zonal anatomy, and, finally, we can agree on the uniformity of indications of the

topic of detected changes in the prostate gland.

However, it should be taken into account that a significant part of MR examinations of the

pelvis in men is aimed at detecting tumors in the bladder or rectum. The protocols for such

studies, naturally, do not meet the requirements of the PI-RADSv2 system and we have no

right to use the recommended division of the gland into 39 sectors. The same situation

occurs with ultrasound examinations; it is not possible to divide the prostate gland into 39

segments due to the peculiarities of the echographic image. Moreover, in transrectal

ultrasound images, only the boundaries of the transition zones can be seen in the structure of

the prostate gland, although not as clearly as in MRI (Fig. 6). It is almost impossible to

differentiate the “true” central zone from the peripheral one, since both, as a rule,

demonstrate a similar level of echogenicity. Therefore, there is a need to have a unified

approach to topical diagnostics in the prostate gland, different from the PI-RADSv2

recommendations.

Conclusion

When describing images of the prostate gland, we propose the following approach:

when describing an MRI examination of the prostate performed in accordance with the

PI-RADSv2 system, be guided by the localization of pathological foci in 39 sectors;

When describing MRI studies that do not meet the requirements of the PI-RADSv2

system (for example, pelvic examinations for neoplasms of the bladder or rectum), as well

as TRUS, we propose using the following system for localizing pathological changes:

base, middle third and apex of the gland;

right and left lobes of the gland;

peripheral and transitional zones;

To avoid confusion regarding the term “central zone”, we propose to avoid it altogether

in the conclusions of both magnetic resonance and ultrasound examinations.

References

1.

Prives M.G., Lysenkov N.K., Bushkovich V.I. Human anatomy. L.: Medicine, 1974.

671 p.

2.

Lowsley OS The gross anatomy of the human prostate gland and contiguous structures.

Surg. Ginecol. Obstet. 1915; 20: 183–192.

3.

Tissel LE, Salander H. The lobes of human prostate.

Scan. J. Urol. Nephrol.

1975; 9: 185–191.

4.

McNeal JE The zonal anatomy of the prostate. Prostate.

1981; 2: 35–49.


background image

w

w

w

.a

ca

de

m

icp

ub

lis

he

rs

.o

rg

Vo

lu

m

e

5,

M

ay

,2

02

5

,

M

ED

IC

AL

SC

IE

N

CE

S.

IM

PA

CT

FA

CT

OR

:7

,8

9

5.

Rifkin MD, Dähnert, W., Kurtz, AB State of the art: endo-rectal sonography of prostate

gland. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1990; 154:691–700.

6.

Gromov A.I., Kapustin V.V. Ultrasound examination of the prostate gland. Moscow:

Shiko, 2014: 8–9.

7.

Barentsz JO, Richenberg J., Clements R., Choyke P., Verma S., Villeirs G., Rouviere O.,

Logager V., Fütterer JJ ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur. Radiol. 2012; 22:

746–757. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y.

8.

Mishchenko A.V., Rubtsova N.A., Alekseev B.Ya., Petrov S.B., Belyaev A.M., Kaprin A.D.

A system of a unified approach to the interpretation of magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate

gland according to the guidelinesPI-RADSv2. Oncourology. 2016; 1:81–89.

9.

Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and

Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur. Urol. 2016; 69 (1): 16–40.

References

Prives M.G., Lysenkov N.K., Bushkovich V.I. Human anatomy. L.: Medicine, 1974. 671 p.

Lowsley OS The gross anatomy of the human prostate gland and contiguous structures. Surg. Ginecol. Obstet. 1915; 20: 183–192.

Tissel LE, Salander H. The lobes of human prostate.

Scan. J. Urol. Nephrol.1975; 9: 185–191.

McNeal JE The zonal anatomy of the prostate. Prostate.

; 2: 35–49.

Rifkin MD, Dähnert, W., Kurtz, AB State of the art: endo-rectal sonography of prostate gland. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1990; 154:691–700.

Gromov A.I., Kapustin V.V. Ultrasound examination of the prostate gland. Moscow: Shiko, 2014: 8–9.

Barentsz JO, Richenberg J., Clements R., Choyke P., Verma S., Villeirs G., Rouviere O., Logager V., Fütterer JJ ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur. Radiol. 2012; 22:

–757. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y.

Mishchenko A.V., Rubtsova N.A., Alekseev B.Ya., Petrov S.B., Belyaev A.M., Kaprin A.D. A system of a unified approach to the interpretation of magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate gland according to the guidelinesPI-RADSv2. Oncourology. 2016; 1:81–89.

Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur. Urol. 2016; 69 (1): 16–40.