Detection of microscopic extracapsular extension prior to radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer

Evaluating Prostate Cancer: The Diagnostic Impact of MRI and Its Relationship With Transrectal Ultrasound (TRUS)-Guided Biopsy

Background Prostate disorders, including benign enlargement and malignancy, are commonly evaluated through imaging techniques. Historically, transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) has been used for prostate imaging and biopsy. However, multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), which integrates structural and functional imaging methods, offers enhanced diagnostic capabilities. This study evaluates the effectiveness of mpMRI, including its grading via Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) or Likert scoring, in distinguishing between benign and malignant prostatic conditions and compares these findings with TRUS outcomes. Methodology This prospective study enrolled 30 male patients aged 45 to 75 years (mean age 60 years), selected based on prostatic abnormalities, elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels (>4 ng/dL), or palpable nodules detected via digital rectal examination. MRI, including PI-RADS or Likert scoring, was utilized to assess prostatic lesions, and results were compared with histopathological data obtained from TRUS-guided biopsies. Results Among the 30 patients, common symptoms included urinary retention (60%) and painful urination (53.3%). Malignant tumors were diagnosed in 12 patients (40%). MRI identified eight cases with enlarged transitional zones and irregular signals in peripheral zones (benign prostatic hyperplasia with tumor) and four cases with irregular signals in both zones (sarcoma). Concordance between MRI T2-weighted (T2W) observations and biopsy results showed 60% malignancy detection. Sensitivity assessments revealed MRI detected 15 true-positives (50%), TRUS detected six true positives (20%), and multivoxel spectroscopic analysis (MVS) identified 14 true-positives (46.7%). PI-RADS or Likert scoring of mpMRI was correlated with TRUS outcomes, highlighting its enhanced diagnostic accuracy compared to TRUS alone. Conclusion While TRUS remains a standard diagnostic tool, it is limited by significant sampling errors and complications. The integration of mpMRI, with its grading system, significantly improves diagnostic accuracy and treatment planning. Although mpMRI alone has limitations, its combination with contrast-enhanced MRI, diffusion-weighted imaging, and MR spectroscopy offers a comprehensive approach to enhanced prostate cancer detection.

Role of MRI in diagnosis of prostate cancer and correlation of results with transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy “TRUS”

Background

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in elderly men, and the second leading cause of cancer-related death in developed countries. For a long time, TRUS is used in screening, diagnosis of prostate lesions. Recently the implementation of multi parametric MRI into a screening program currently seems to be the most promising technique to improve the early detection of prostate cancer.

Results

Thirty Patients were referred from urological outpatient clinics complaining of urological symptoms (dysuria, frequency and urine retention). The study was carried, and the patients were submitted to Ultrasonography, conventional magnetic resonance, diffusion weighted images and MR spectroscopy techniques, these results were correlated with histopathological data. In this study Conventional MRI has moderate sensitivity 81.8% and low specificity 37.3% in diagnosing prostate malignancy. Using of mpMRI combination of diffusion-weighted, Dynamic contrast enhanced and MR spectroscopic imaging is a promising approach for discriminating between benign and malignant lesions in the PZ and increase sensitivity 100% and specificity 96.6% in diagnosing prostate malignancy.

Conclusions

The standard for the definitive diagnosis of prostate cancer is trans-rectal ultrasound biopsy. However, TRUS guided biopsy has a significant sampling error and can miss up to 30% of cancers and may show underestimation of Gleason grade, especially in anteriorly located tumors. It may lead to an increase in complications. MRI has an essential role to play in making safer in diagnosis. It can aid in staging also and surgery or radiation treatment planning. Although T2W MRI has been used widely for diagnosis on the basis of its excellent soft tissue resolution, but its accuracy for the detection and localization of cancer prostate is unsatisfactory. The implementation of multi parametric MRI: MR spectroscopy, Dynamic contrast enhanced and diffusion weighted imaging into a diagnosis program improve the diagnostic performance. These advances are beginning to translate into better treatment selection and more accurate image-guided therapies. In addition, early detection of local recurrence.

Imaging in prostate carcinoma

Imaging plays a central role in the detection, diagnosis, staging, and follow-up of prostate carcinoma. This article discusses the role of multiple imaging modalities in the diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer, with attention to imaging features of localized and metastatic disease, imaging adjuncts to improve prostate biopsy, and potential imaging biomarkers. In addition, the role of imaging in the management of prostate cancer, with emphasis on surveillance, evaluation of response to new therapies, and detection of recurrent disease is described. Lastly, future directions in prostate cancer imaging are presented.

Prostate cancer imaging: what the urologist wants to know

No consensus exists at present regarding the use of imaging for the evaluation of prostate cancer. Ultrasonography is mainly used for biopsy guidance and magnetic resonance imaging is the mainstay in evaluating the extent of local tumor. Computed tomography and radionuclide bone scanning are mainly reserved for assessment of advanced disease. Positron emission tomography is gaining acceptance in the evaluation of treatment response and recurrence. The combination of anatomic, functional, and metabolic imaging modalities has promise to improve treatment. This article reviews current imaging techniques and touches on the evolving technologies being used for detection and follow-up of prostate cancer.

Does the Presence of Hypoechoic Lesions on Transrectal Ultrasound Suggest a Poor Prognosis for Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer?

Purpose

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusions

Imaging in prostate cancer staging: present role and future perspectives

Despite recent improvements in detection and treatment, prostate cancer continues to be the most common malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Thus, although survival rate continues to improve, prostate cancer remains a compelling medical health problem. The major goal of prostate cancer imaging in the next decade will be more accurate disease characterization through the synthesis of anatomic, functional, and molecular imaging information in order to plan the most appropriate therapeutic strategy. No consensus exists regarding the use of imaging for evaluating primary prostate cancer. However, conventional and functional imaging are expanding their role in detection and local staging and, moreover, functional imaging is becoming of great importance in oncologic management and monitoring of therapy response. This review presents a multidisciplinary perspective on the role of conventional and functional imaging methods in prostate cancer staging.

Can we predict real T3 stage prostate cancer in patients with clinical T3 (cT3) disease before radical prostatectomy?

PURPOSE

Down-staging of clinical T3 (cT3) prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy (RP) is not uncommon due to the inaccuracy of the currently available staging modalities, although selected down-staged cT3 patients can be a candidate for definitive RP. We identified the significant predictors for down-staging of cT3 after RP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included 67 patients with cT3 stage prostate cancer treated with radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) between 1998 and 2006 and reviewed their medical records retrospectively. The clinical stage was obtained according to the DRE, the prostate biopsy findings, and the prostate MRI.

RESULTS

Fifty three (79%) patients with cT3 prostate cancer were down-staged to pT2 after RP. The percent of positive cores had the strongest association with down-staging of cT3 [p = 0.01, odds ratio (OR) = 6.3], followed by baseline prostate specific antigen (PSA) (p = 0.03, OR = 5.0), the biopsy Gleason sum (GS) (p = 0.03, OR = 4.7), and the maximum tumor volume of the positive cores (p = 0.05, OR = 4.0). When the cut-off points of significant parameters which were a PSA < 10 ng/mL, a percent of positive cores < or = 30%, a maximum tumor volume of the positive cores < or = 75% and GS < or = 7 were combined, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value were 0.25%, 1.00%, and 100%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The percent of positive cores < or = 30%, serum PSA < 10 ng/mL, the biopsy GS < or = 7, and the maximum tumor volume of the positive cores < or = 75% were the significant predictors of down-staging cT3 disease after RP.

Modalities for imaging of prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the second most common cause of cancer deaths among males in the United States. Prostate screening by digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen has shifted the diagnosis of prostate cancer to lower grade, organ confined disease, adding to overdetection and overtreatment of prostate cancer. The new challenge is in differentiating clinically relevant tumors from ones that may otherwise never have become evident if not for screening. The rapid evolution of imaging modalities and the synthesis of anatomic, functional, and molecular data allow for improved detection and characterization of prostate cancer. However, the appropriate use of imaging is difficult to define, as many controversial studies regarding each of the modalities and their utilities can be found in the literature. Clinical practice patterns have been slow to adopt many of these advances as a result. This review discusses the more established imaging techniques, including Ultrasonography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, MR Spectroscopy, Computed Tomography, and Positron Emission Tomography. We also review several promising techniques on the horizon, including Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI, Diffuse-Weighted Imaging, Superparamagnetic Nanoparticles, and Radionuclide Scintigraphy.

Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting extracapsular extension in radical prostatectomy specimens

OBJECTIVES

To present a nomogram predicting the side-specific probability of extracapsular extension (ECE) in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens.

METHODS

Three hundred and fifty-four patients with T1c-T3a prostate cancer undergoing RP were included in the analysis. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was carried out to evaluate the predictive values of each clinical and pathological factor, separately and in combination. Based on logistic regression analysis, a nomogram predicting the side-specific probability of ECE was developed.

RESULTS

Overall, 146 (40%) of 354 patients and 165 (23%) of 708 lobes had ECE pathologically. The areas under the ROC curve (AUC) of the standard features, such as serum PSA, clinical stage and biopsy Gleason sum on each side, in predicting side-specific probability of ECE were 0.624, 0.627, and 0.747, respectively. When these three features were combined, AUC increased to 0.773 which was not significantly different from 0.791 of maximum percent of cancer alone (P = 0.613) and significantly enhanced by including maximum percent of cancer on each side, 0.799 (P = 0.022). The resulting nomogram was internally validated and had excellent calibration.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy in predicting ECE is increased by combining standard clinical factors (clinical stage, serum PSA, highest Gleason score) and biopsy features, such as maximum percent of cancer in the cores. The developed nomogram is helpful when deciding whether or not neurovascular bundles can be preserved.

The adjunctive use of power Doppler imaging in the preoperative assessment of prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine if the adjunctive use of power Doppler imaging (PDI) could provide prognostic utility in the treatment of prostate cancer, as an accurate prediction of the clinical behaviour of prostate cancer is important to determine appropriate treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Most centres rely on a digital rectal examination or transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) to assess the clinical stage of patients. In 2002, we began using a standardized form to evaluate TRUS findings and PDI findings. We compared preoperative clinical findings with those from pathological analysis of 620 radical prostatectomy specimens from 2002 to 2007.

RESULTS

The mean (sd) patient age was 58 (6.6) years with a mean prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 7.0 (4.5) ng/mL. Of the 620 specimens 157 (25.3%) had evidence of extracapsular extension on pathological evaluation; 443 (71.5%) men had a hypervascular lesion seen on TRUS, while 177 (28.5%) patients had none. There was no difference in preoperative PSA level, grade or stage of tumour. Furthermore, rates of biochemical recurrence or secondary treatment did not differ based on PDI findings. As a tool to help locate prostate tumours, PDI improved the specificity of TRUS but did not improve the overall accuracy or sensitivity.

CONCLUSION

PDI provides little prognostic utility to assess risk in prostate cancer. However, PDI might improve the specificity of TRUS in identifying prostate tumours and could have a role in image guidance for focal therapy of prostate cancer.

Imaging prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary perspective

The major goal for prostate cancer imaging in the next decade is more accurate disease characterization through the synthesis of anatomic, functional, and molecular imaging information. No consensus exists regarding the use of imaging for evaluating primary prostate cancers. Ultrasonography is mainly used for biopsy guidance and brachytherapy seed placement. Endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is helpful for evaluating local tumor extent, and MR spectroscopic imaging can improve this evaluation while providing information about tumor aggressiveness. MR imaging with superparamagnetic nanoparticles has high sensitivity and specificity in depicting lymph node metastases, but guidelines have not yet been developed for its use, which remains restricted to the research setting. Computed tomography (CT) is reserved for the evaluation of advanced disease. The use of combined positron emission tomography/CT is limited in the assessment of primary disease but is gaining acceptance in prostate cancer treatment follow-up. Evidence-based guidelines for the use of imaging in assessing the risk of distant spread of prostate cancer are available. Radionuclide bone scanning and CT supplement clinical and biochemical evaluation (prostate-specific antigen [PSA], prostatic acid phosphate) for suspected metastasis to bones and lymph nodes. Guidelines for the use of bone scanning (in patients with PSA level > 10 ng/mL) and CT (in patients with PSA level > 20 ng/mL) have been published and are in clinical use. Nevertheless, changes in practice patterns have been slow. This review presents a multidisciplinary perspective on the optimal role of modern imaging in prostate cancer detection, staging, treatment planning, and follow-up.

Transrectal ultrasound in the staging of clinical T3a prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

The clinical staging of T3a prostate cancer is usually based on digital rectal examination (DRE). Overstaging of clinical T3a prostate cancer is present in 13-27% of the cases presented and understaging is in the range of 30%. The value of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) as a staging tool is not generally accepted. The purpose of this study is to determine whether TRUS can refine the local staging in unilateral clinical T3a (cT3a) prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 1987 and 2004, 200 patients were staged as unilateral cT3a prostate cancer by DRE. All patients underwent radical prostatectomy and bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy. Preoperative TRUS staging was performed for all patients. Final histopathological staging was compared with DRE and TRUS staging. The operable group (OG) was defined as T2 to unilateral T3a, and the advanced group (AG) was defined as bilateral T3a to T4.

RESULTS

All DRE patients were assumed operable. However, in this group histopathology showed 27.0% of the patients had advanced disease. TRUS confirmed 184 patients to be operable (140 having unilateral cT3a, 44 patients having cT1c to cT2). Sixteen patients were considered to have advanced disease by TRUS. Importantly, in this group, 68.7% of the cases were indeed confirmed to have advanced disease by histopathology.

CONCLUSION

TRUS can be used to refine clinical staging in unilateral cT3a prostate cancer. In cases where TRUS indicates advanced disease, it might be wise to trust the TRUS staging, rather than the DRE.

Assessing the Prognostic Significance of Transrectal Ultrasound Extracapsular Extension in Prostate Cancer

AIMS

To determine the prognostic value of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-detected extraprostatic disease for prostate cancer in patients receiving radical external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A chart review of 181 patients treated with radical EBRT for prostate cancer was conducted. All patients underwent TRUS assessment by one radiologist. The median radiation dose delivered to the prostate was 66 Gy (range 53-70 Gy) in 33 fractions (range 20-39 fractions). Median follow-up time for all patients was 6.5 years. Sixty-four (35%) out of 181 patients were found to have extracapsular disease on TRUS. Clinical relapse was defined as the first occurrence of either salvage hormonal therapy administration by the treating oncologist or clinical, radiological, and/or pathologic evidence of recurrent or progressive disease. In terms of biochemical failure, two prognostic variable analyses were carried out using both the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) consensus guidelines and the Houston definition of biochemical failure. The primary end point for the prognostic variable analyses was time to first clinical or biochemical failure (CBF).

RESULTS

For time to CBF using the ASTRO consensus guidelines for biochemical failure, univariable analysis revealed that the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (P = 0.018), clinical T stage (P = 0.002), Gleason score (P = 0.021), adjuvant hormonal therapy (P = 0.032) and TRUS T staging (P = 0.0001) were statistically significant prognostic factors. On multivariable analysis, clinical T stage (P = 0.051) was of borderline statistical significance, whereas PSA (P = 0.036), TRUS T stage (P = 0.0002) and adjuvant hormonal therapy (P = 0.015) were found to be independent prognostic factors. For time to CBF using the Houston definition of biochemical failure, univariable analysis revealed that PSA (P = 0.001), Gleason score (P = 0.026) and prostate volume (P = 0.013) were statistically significant prognostic factors. On multivariable analysis, PSA (P = 0.002), Gleason score (P = 0.012), and adjuvant hormonal therapy (P = 0.041) were found to be independent prognostic factors. TRUS T staging was not found to be independently significant.

CONCLUSIONS

A clear role for TRUS staging as an independent prognostic factor, in the setting of other more established variables, such as Gleason grade, PSA, and digital rectal examination (DRE) T stage, was not confirmed in this study, population.

Do impalpable stage T1c prostate cancers visible on ultrasound differ from those not visible?

PURPOSE

We assessed whether the appearance of cancer within the prostate on sonography is associated with different pathological features and/or prognoses compared with nonvisible impalpable cancers defined as stage T1c by the TNM staging system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed the clinical and pathological features, and progression rate in 323 patients with clinical stage T1cNX M0 cancer treated with radical prostatectomy between 1983 and 1998. Mean followup was 46.8 months (range 1 to 186).

RESULTS

Of 323 impalpable stage T1c cancers 170 (53%) were visible and the remainder was not visible on ultrasound. There were no significant differences in clinical or pathological features of the cancers in these 2 groups. The prostate specific antigen nonprogression rate at 5 years was also similar for patients with impalpable cancer regardless of whether the lesion was or was not revealed by ultrasound (mean +/- SE 87% +/- 6% and 91% +/- 6%, respectively, p = 0.3767). Of the 170 visible cancers 55 patients had a hypoechoic lesion considered highly suspicious for cancer. These cancers were higher grade, more extensive, less likely to be confined to the prostate and the prognosis was significantly worse than that of impalpable cancer whether or not they were visible at a less suspicious level (IV or less, p = 0.011). However, such highly suspicious visible cancers are rarely visualized today. Initial serum prostate specific antigen more accurately predicts the pathological stage of impalpable cancer than transrectal ultrasound results.

CONCLUSIONS

Impalpable cancers currently detected have similar pathological features and prognoses whether or not they are visible by ultrasound. Therefore, it is reasonable to categorize impalpable cancers as stage T1c and analyze the response to treatment regardless of the results of ultrasound.

Predictors of prostate carcinoma: accuracy of gray-scale and color Doppler US and serum markers

PURPOSE

To determine the accuracy of detecting prostate cancer by using (a) gray-scale and color Doppler transrectal ultrasonography (US), (b) serum and excess prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, and (c) targeted and sextant transrectal US-guided biopsy. The relationship between US-detected neovascularity and tumor biologic activity was also evaluated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 1995 and 1999, 544 patients with elevated PSA levels and/or abnormal digital rectal examination underwent transrectal US-guided sextant biopsy and targeted biopsy of US abnormalities. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of gray-scale US, color Doppler US, targeted biopsy, and PSA and excess PSA were calculated.

RESULTS

Gray-scale US depicted 78 (41.1%) of 190 cancers, whereas color Doppler US depicted 30 (15.8%) additional cancers. Targeted biopsy was used to detect 108 (56.8%) cancers, whereas sextant biopsy was used to detect 82 (43.2%) additional cancers. Although US-visible cancers had a higher Gleason grade than did cancers discovered at sextant biopsy (P <.05), 25 of the 66 cancers identified with sextant biopsy alone were Gleason grade 6 or higher. Color Doppler US-depicted hypervascularity correlated with biologically aggressive tumors. Excess PSA was normal in 58 (30.5%) cancers, with an accuracy of 67.3%, resulting in better prediction of prostate tumors than with serum PSA level alone.

CONCLUSION

Gray-scale transrectal US, even coupled with color Doppler US, is inadequate for prostate carcinoma screening; therefore, targeted biopsy should always be accompanied by complete sextant biopsy sampling.

Clinical staging of prostate cancer: reproducibility and clarification of issues

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for prostate cancer adopted in 1992 is based on tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) designations. It has been widely accepted for use in local and advanced disease. The purpose of this study was to assess reproducibility of staging among observers and to help clarify staging issues. Twelve prostate cancer cases were sent to 20 physicians with special expertise in prostate cancer including eight urologists, eight radiation oncologists, and four medical oncologists. Physicians were asked to assign a stage based on the 1992 AJCC clinical staging. The most frequently reported stage assigned to each case was taken to be the consensus. Agreement was the percentage of physicians who reported that particular stage. Seventy-five percent of the physicians responded. The overall agreement for assignment of T stage was 63.9%. Differences were found by specialty for inclusion of available information in designating a T stage. The overall agreement for N stage was 73.8%. The most common designation was Nx regardless of availability of a computed tomography scan. The overall agreement for M stage was 76.6%. Without a bone scan the most common designation was Mx regardless of Gleason grade or prostate-specific antigen (PSA). A frequent comment was that PSA was more indicative of disease extent than current clinical staging. The reproducibility of the 1992 clinical AJCC staging is poor even among experts in the field. This problem arises primarily from disagreement regarding which studies are included in assigning a stage. Some of these difficulties are addressed in the 1997 revision. However, the clinical staging does not address the true biological significance of disease in many instances.

Relationship of ultrasound staging and bilateral biopsy positivity to outcome in stage T1c prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy

OBJECTIVES

The strict definition of Stage T1c prostate cancer is that the tumor is not palpable on digital rectal examination (DRE) or seen on imaging studies such as ultrasound. The inclusion of ultrasound imaging was brought about without an understanding of the relationship between ultrasound upstaging and prognosis. We have also noticed that in clinical practice, treatment decisions are made on the basis of the finding of bilateral versus unilateral biopsy positivity. The objectives in this study were to determine the prognostic significance of upstaging by transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) to uT2 or uT3, and unilateral versus bilateral biopsy positivity in patients with Stage T1c cancer as determined by DRE (DRE-Stage T1c patients).

METHODS

Between 1987 and 1995 there were 643 patients with DRE-Stage T1-T2 prostate cancer treated with external beam radiotherapy; 24 had T1a, 76 had T1b, 183 had T1c, 133 had T2a, 168 had T2b, and 59 had T2c. Of these, 135 DRE-Stage T1c patients underwent ultrasound staging and 122 underwent bilateral prostate biopsies. All had pretreatment prostate-specific antigen values (PSAs) available and no patient received adjuvant androgen ablation. The median pretreatment PSA was 9.1 ng/mL, median radiotherapy dose was 66.0 Gy, and median follow-up was 41 months. Post-treatment failure was defined as disease recurrence and/or two elevations in PSA on consecutive follow-up visits.

RESULTS

The 5-year freedom from failure rate for DRE-Stage T1c patients (71%) was not significantly different from that of DRE-Stage T1b (65%) or DRE-Stage T2a (71%) patients. There was a trend (P = 0.1) toward a worse outcome for DRE-Stage T2b/T2c patients compared with DRE-Stage T1b/T1c/T2a patients. The distribution of DRE-Stage T1c patients by ultrasound staging was 29 with uT1c, 88 with uT2, and 18 with uT3 findings. Twenty percent of patients had bilateral positive biopsy specimens. In univariate and multivariate analyses, the only correlates of patient outcome were pretreatment PSA (P < or = 0.002) and isocenter dose (P = 0.03). TRUS upstaging had no effect on freedom from failure; uT1c patients had about the same risk of relapse or a rising PSA as uT2 or uT3 patients. Patients with bilateral positive prostate biopsy specimens had about the same prognosis as those with unilateral positive biopsy specimens.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with DRE-Stage T1c prostate cancer, the data indicate that ultrasound staging and bilateral biopsy positivity are not predictive of outcome for patients treated with external beam radiotherapy and treatment decisions should not be based on these parameters.

Prostate cancer staging: correlation between ultrasound determined tumor contact length and pathologically confirmed extraprostatic extension

PURPOSE

We determine whether a new parameter, the amount of tumor in contact with the fibromuscular rim (capsule) of the prostate, correlates with extraprostatic extension, and ascertain whether estimating the new parameter using transrectal ultrasonography can predict extraprostatic extension.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed step sectioned prostatectomy specimens from 189 patients who had had positive peripheral zone biopsies. We measured the contact length, maximum length (mm.) of the portion of the peripheral zone cancer that was in contact with the fibromuscular rim, and determined the contact ratio from the quotient (%) of the contact length divided by the tumor circumference. We evaluated the correlation between the pathological and ultrasound measurements of these parameters, as well as the accuracy of these criteria for predicting microscopic extraprostatic extension.

RESULTS

Among the 189 cancers there was a significant difference (p <0.0001) between organ confined tumors and tumors with extraprostatic extension in contact length and contact ratio. There was a positive correlation (r = 0.691) between the contact lengths measured ultrasonically and histologically among 95 patients who had hypoechoic lesions associated with positive biopsies. A receiver operating characteristics curve of the ability of ultrasound estimated contact length to predict extraprostatic extension revealed the best cutoff value to be 23 mm. with 77% accuracy. Logistic regression analysis revealed that pathological contact length correlated better with extraprostatic extension than tumor volume, Gleason score, prostate specific antigen (PSA) level and pathological contact ratio. The best preoperative predictor of extraprostatic extension was the ultrasound contact length, followed by the contact ratio, PSA value, percentage of the biopsy specimen that was cancer and presence of perineural invasion in the biopsy specimen. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that the predictability of ultrasound contact length was improved by considering PSA value also. Probability plots for predicting extraprostatic extension were developed by combination of ultrasound contact length with PSA value.

CONCLUSIONS

The length of tumor contact with the fibromuscular rim is more significantly related to extraprostatic extension than tumor volume, PSA level and tumor grade. For hypoechoic cancers a new ultrasound staging criterion, contact length, has been defined. For men who are clinically candidates for radical prostatectomy and have peripheral zone hypoechoic cancers the combination of ultrasound contact length and PSA value is the best predictor of extraprostatic extension.

Transrectal ultrasonography for the detection and staging of carcinoma of the prostate

Transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) has become the most frequently used imaging modality for the prostate. The internal architecture of the prostate is readily detailed by TRUS, and the procedure allows an accurate measurement of prostate size. Carcinoma of the prostate has a characteristic hypoechoic pattern which is sometimes distinct from the normal echo pattern of the peripheral portion of the prostate. TRUS does not have sufficient sensitivity and specificity to support its use for routine screening for prostate cancer. In men with an abnormality of either digital rectal palpation of the prostate or serum prostate specific antigen, TRUS is useful for directing prostate biopsy. Transrectal core biopsies are obtained under ultrasound direction, and precise placement of the biopsy needles can be accomplished using TRUS.