Contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasonography for detection and localization of prostate index tumor: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings

Comparative Assessment of Different Ultrasound Technologies in the Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The present study aimed to assess the diagnostic test accuracy of different ultrasound scanning technologies in the detection of prostate cancer. A systematic search was conducted using the Cochrane Guidelines for Screening and Diagnostic Tests. We performed a systematic search in the international databases PubMed, Medline, Ovid, Embase and Cochrane Library. Searches were designed to find all studies that evaluated Micro-US, mpUS, SWE and CEUS as the main detection modalities for prostate cancer. This study was registered with Research Registry of systematic review and meta-analysis. The QUADAS-2 tool was utilized to perform quality assessment and bias analysis. The literature search generated 1376 studies. Of these, 320 studies were screened for eligibility, with 1056 studies being excluded. Overall, 26 studies with a total of 6370 patients met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity for grayscale, CEUS, SWE, Micro-US and mpUS modalities were 0.66 (95% CI 0.54-0.73) 0.73 (95% CI 0.58-0.88), 0.82 (95% CI 0.75-0.90), 0.85 (95% CI 0.76-0.94) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.71-1.03), respectively. Moreover, the pooled specificity for grayscale, CEUS, SWE, Micro-US and mpUS modalities were 0.56 (95% CI 0.21-0.90), 0.78 (95% CI 0.67-0.88), 0.76 (95% CI 0.65-0.88), 0.43 (95% CI 0.28-0.59) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.54-0.81), respectively. In terms of sensitivity, substantial heterogeneity between studies was detected (I2 = 72%, p = 0.000 < 0.05). In relation to specificity, extreme heterogeneity was detected (I2 = 93%, p = 0.000 < 0.05). Some studies proved that advanced ultrasound modalities such as mpUS, Micro-US, shear-wave elastography, contrast enhanced and micro-ultrasound are promising methods for the detection of prostate cancer.

Focal Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy With Correlative Pathological and Radiographic-Based Treatment Planning

Introduction

Advances in multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) combining anatomic and functional imaging can accurately identify foci of adenocarcinoma within the prostate, offering the possibility of partial gland therapy. We performed tandem prospective pilot trials to investigate the feasibility of focal prostate SBRT (f-SBRT) based on correlating diagnostic mpMRI and biopsies with confirmatory pathology in treatment planning.

Materials and Methods

Patients with pathologic focal Gleason 6–7 disease and a corresponding PIRADS 4–5 lesion on mpMRI underwent targeted and comprehensive biopsies using MRI/ultrasound fusion under electromagnetic sensor navigation. After rigorous analysis for imaging biopsy concordance, five of 18 patients were eligible to proceed to f-SBRT. Chi-squared test was used for differences from expected outcomes, and concordance was estimated with binomial distribution theory and Wilson’s method.

Results

Six patients had Gleason 6 and 12 had Gleason 3 + 4 disease (mean PSA: 5.8 ng/ml, range: 2.2–8.4). Absolute concordance was 43.8% (95% CI: 0.20, 0.64). Patterns of discordance included additional sites of ipsilateral disease, bilateral disease, and negative target. Five were upstaged to a new NCCN risk category necessitating treatment escalation. The five patients with concordant pathology completed three-fraction f-SBRT with sparing of the surrounding normal structures (including contralateral neurovascular bundle), with no reported grade 2+ toxicities and favorable PSA responses (mean: 41% decrease).

Conclusions

On our pilot trials of f-SBRT planning using rigorous imaging and pathology concordance, image-guided confirmatory biopsies frequently revealed additional disease, suggesting the need for caution in partial-gland therapy. For truly focal disease, f-SBRT provided excellent dosimetry, minimal toxicity, and encouraging biochemical response. Clinical Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02681614; NCT02163317.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound evaluation of the prostate before transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy can improve diagnostic sensitivity: A STARD-compliant article

To conduct a STARD-compliant validity that the contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) evaluation of prostate for the improvement of positive rate of biopsy and diagnostic efficiency of prostate carcinoma (PCa).Data of 137 patients with suspected PCa who underwent relevant examinations and treatment were reviewed, and 82 of 137 patients were finally included. The patients consisted of Group 1 (26 patients) and Group 2 (42 patients) according to which they underwent transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy selected from CEUS evaluation of the prostate and who underwent TRUS-guided biopsy directly. A systematic 12-core biopsy was performed at first, and additional 1 to 2 cores biopsy was made in the suspected target area where CEUS had showed abnormal enhancement. The assumed diagnoses were compared with pathological findings.There were 37 patients with PCa and 31 patients with benign lesions; and 14 patients without biopsy after CEUS did not find PCa emerging in follow-up (18-47 months). The positive rates of biopsy-malignant lesions were 73.1% and 42.8% in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. The positive rate of biopsy in Group 1 was significantly higher than that in Group 2 (P = .024). The sensitivity and accuracy of TRUS biopsy and a combination of TRUS biopsy after transrectal CEUS for the evaluation of prostate benign and malignant lesion were 60% and 66.7% (P=0.0139), and 94.4% and 88.5% (P=0.0453), respectively.CEUS evaluation of the prostate of PSA-elevated patient before biopsy can help select target patient with high risk of PCa, reduce unnecessary biopsy, increase detection rate of PCa, and improve diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy.

Multiparametric dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging of prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to improve the accuracy of dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US) for prostate cancer (PCa) localization by means of a multiparametric approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirteen different parameters related to either perfusion or dispersion were extracted pixel-by-pixel from 45 DCE-US recordings in 19 patients referred for radical prostatectomy. Multiparametric maps were retrospectively produced using a Gaussian mixture model algorithm. These were subsequently evaluated on their pixel-wise performance in classifying 43 benign and 42 malignant histopathologically confirmed regions of interest, using a prostate-based leave-one-out procedure.

RESULTS

The combination of the spatiotemporal correlation (r), mean transit time (μ), curve skewness (κ), and peak time (PT) yielded an accuracy of 81% ± 11%, which was higher than the best performing single parameters: r (73%), μ (72%), and wash-in time (72%). The negative predictive value increased to 83% ± 16% from 70%, 69% and 67%, respectively. Pixel inclusion based on the confidence level boosted these measures to 90% with half of the pixels excluded, but without disregarding any prostate or region.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest multiparametric DCE-US analysis might be a useful diagnostic tool for PCa, possibly supporting future targeting of biopsies or therapy. Application in other types of cancer can also be foreseen.

KEY POINTS

• DCE-US can be used to extract both perfusion and dispersion-related parameters. • Multiparametric DCE-US performs better in detecting PCa than single-parametric DCE-US. • Multiparametric DCE-US might become a useful tool for PCa localization.

Value of three-section contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasonography in the detection of prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

To assess the efficacy of three-section contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasonography (CETRUS) in prostate cancer (PCa) detection.

METHODS

A total of 169 consecutive patients with either PSA level ≥ 4 ng/ml or abnormal digital rectal examination findings were prospectively enrolled in this single center study. All patients underwent baseline transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) and three-section CETRUS by one investigator blinded to any clinical data before TRUS-guided transperineal biopsy. The performances of baseline TRUS, single-section, and three-section CETRUS for PCa detection were compared.

RESULTS

On a per-patient basis, the sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy for detecting PCa with three-section CETRUS was 92.3%, 69.2%, and 78.1%, respectively. In comparison with conventional (single-section) CETRUS (sensitivity 75.4%, specificity 72.1%, and accuracy 73.4%), three-section CETRUS performed significantly better (p < 0.05, McNemar test). Additionally, the low-grade PCa detection rate for three-section CETRUS was significantly higher than that of conventional CETRUS (26.7% versus 10.2%, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated a significant benefit of three-section CETRUS relative to conventional CETRUS, and this technique may find more PCa patients eligible for active surveillance. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Ultrasound 45:304-309, 2017.

Contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasonography for the detection of diffuse prostate cancer

AIM

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasonography (CE-TRUS) versus baseline TRUS (combination of grey-scale and colour Doppler imaging) for diffuse prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-six patients without an obvious focal mass on baseline TRUS (grey-scale and colour Doppler), underwent additional CE-TRUS and TRUS-guided biopsy due to elevated levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA ≥4 ng/ml) and/or abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE). In all patients, CE-TRUS was performed with intravenous injection of a contrast agent (sulphur hexafluoride microbubble; SonoVue, 2.4 ml) before biopsy. TRUS-guided biopsy targeted suspicious areas detected on CE-TRUS imaging or sampled the outer gland of the normal prostate. The final diagnosis was based on results of the TRUS-guided biopsy. The diagnostic accuracy of baseline TRUS and CE-TRUS for diffuse prostatic lesions was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

RESULTS

Diffuse prostate cancer was present in 32 (69.5%) patients and absent in 14 (30.5%) patients. Nineteen patients had diffuse prostate cancer that was not detected by baseline TRUS, whereas 15 cases were identified using CE-TRUS. Conversely, five patients had benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) that was diagnosed as cancer by CE-TRUS, and two of these patients were diagnosed with BPH by baseline TRUS. The combined sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 87.5%, 64.2%, and 80.4%, respectively, for CE-TRUS, and 40.6%, 78.5%, and 52.1%, respectively, for baseline TRUS. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) values for the diagnostic accuracy of baseline CE-TRUS versus TRUS for diffuse prostate cancer differed significantly at 0.904 and 0.667, respectively (Z=4.098, p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

CE-TRUS exhibited greater diagnostic accuracy for diffuse prostate cancer than baseline TRUS. CE-TRUS may improve cancer detection over baseline TRUS imaging for the diagnosis of diffuse prostate cancer in patients with an elevated PSA level. CE-TRUS detects diffuse prostate cancer without an obvious focal mass on routine TRUS or clinical examination, and therefore, may help identify patients who do not need a repeat biopsy or who do not need to undergo systematic 12-core invasive sampling biopsies.

Multiparametric ultrasound in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To investigate the advances and clinical results of the different ultrasound modalities and the progress in combining them into multiparametric UltraSound (mpUS).

METHODS

A systematic literature search on mpUS and the different ultrasound modalities included: greyscale ultrasound, computerized transrectal ultrasound, Doppler and power Doppler techniques, dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound and (shear wave) elastography.

RESULTS

Limited research available on combining ultrasound modalities has presented improvement in diagnostic performance. The data of two studies suggest that even adding a lower performing ultrasound modality to a better performing modality using crude methods can already improve the sensitivity by 13-51 %. The different modalities detect different tumours. No study has tried to combine ultrasound modalities employing a system similar to the PIRADS system used for mpMRI or more advanced classifying algorithms.

CONCLUSION

Available evidence confirms that combining different ultrasound modalities significantly improves diagnostic performance.