SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT
Citation Information : Journal of Ultrasonography. Volume 15, Issue 60, Pages 5-14, DOI: https://doi.org/10.15557/JoU.2015.0001
License : (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
Received Date : 16-February-2015 / Accepted: 26-February-2015 / Published Online: 13-September-2016
Aim: This study was designed to evaluate the performance of shear-wave elastography as a diagnostic tool for prostate cancer in a larger cohort of patients than previously
reported. Patients and methods: Seventy-three patients with suspected prostate carcinoma were investigated by ultrasound elastography followed by directed biopsy. The elastographic and histological results for all biopsies were compared. Results: After exclusion of invalid and non-assessable results, 794 samples were obtained for which both a histological assessment and an elastometric result (tissue stiffness in kPa) were available:according to the histology 589 were benign and 205 were malignant. Tissue elasticity was found to be weakly correlated with patient’s age, PSA level and gland volume. ROC analysis showed that, for the set of results acquired, elastometry did not fulfi l literature claims that it could identify malignant neoplasia with high sensitivity and specifi city. However, it did show promise in distinguishing between Gleason scores ≤6 and >6 when malignancy had already been identifi ed. Unexpected observations were the fi nding of a smaller proportion of tumours in the lateral regions of the prostate than generally expected, and also the observation that the elasticity of benign prostate tissue is region-sensitive, the tissue being stiffest in the basal region and more elastic at the apex. Conclusions: Shear-wave elastography was found to be a poor predictor of malignancy, but for malignant lesions an elasticity cut-off of 80 kPa allowed a fairly reliable distinction between lesions with Gleason ≤6 and those with Gleason >6. We demonstrate an increase in elasticity of benign prostate tissue from the basal to the apical region.
1. Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes: Zentrum für Krebsregisterdaten:Krebs in Deutschland 2009/2010 [German Federal Health Report, Cancer Data Registry 2009–2010], ed. 9. Robert Koch-Institut, Berlin 2013: 16 (Fig. 3.0.1).
2. Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes: Zentrum für Krebsregisterdaten:Krebs in Deutschland 2009/2010 [German Federal Health Report, Cancer Data Registry 2009–2010], ed. 9. Robert Koch-Institut, Berlin 2013: 17 (Fig. 3.0.2).
3. Ilic D, Neuberger MM, Djulbegovic M, Dahm P: Screening for prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 1: CD004720.
4. Fütterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, Emberton M, Giannarini G, Kirkham A et al.: Can clinically signifi cant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2015; pii: S0302–2838(15)00036–6.
5. Uemura H, Sano F, Nomiya A, Yamamoto T, Nakamura M, Miki K et al.: Usefulness of perfl ubutane microbubble-enhanced ultrasound in imaging and detection of prostate cancer: phase II multicenter clinical trial. World J Urol 2013; 31: 1123–1128.
6. Loch T: Computerized supported transrectal ultrasound (C-TRUS) in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Urologe A 2004; 43: 1377–1384.
7. Braeckman J, Autier P, Garbar C, Marichal MP, Soviany C, Nir R et al.: Computer-aided ultrasonography (HistoScanning): a novel technology for locating and characterizing prostate cancer. BJU Int 2008; 101:293–298.
8. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Eyre HJ: Cancer screening in the United States 2007: a review of current guidelines, practices, and prospects. CA Cancer J Clin 2007; 57: 90–104.
9. Mottet N, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, van den Bergh RCN, Bolla M, van Casteren NJ et al.: Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. European Association of Urology 2014.
10. Catalona WJ, Smith DS, Ornstein DK: Prostate cancer detection in men with serum PSA concentrations of 2.6 to 4.0 ng/mL and benign prostate examination. Enhancement of specifi city with free PSA measurements. JAMA 1997; 277: 1452–1455.
11. Ophir J, Céspedes I, Ponnekanti H, Yazdi Y, Li X: Elastography: a quantitative method for imaging the elasticity of biological tissues. Ultrason Imaging 1991; 13: 111–134.
12. Woo S, Kim SY, Lee MS, Cho JY, Kim SH: Shear wave elastography assessment in the prostate: an intraobserver reproducibility study. Clin Imaging 2014; pii: S0899–7071(14)00281-2. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag. 2014.11.013. [Epub ahead of print]
13. Mitri FG, Urban MW, Fatemi M, Greenleaf JF: Shear wave dispersion ultrasonic vibrometry for measuring prostate shear stiffness and viscosity: an in vitro pilot study. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2011; 58: 235–242.
14. Barr RG, Memo R, Schaub CR: Shear wave ultrasound elastography of the prostate: initial results. Ultrasound Q 2012; 28: 13–20.
15. Ahmad S, Cao R, Varghese T, Bidaut L, Nabi G: Transrectal quantitative shear wave elastography in the detection and characterisation of prostate cancer. Surg Endosc 2013; 27: 3280–3287.
16. Correas JM, Tissier AM, Khairoune A, Vassiliu V, Méjean A, Hélénon O et al.: Prostate cancer: diagnostic performance of real-time shearwave elastography. Radiology 2014; 19: 140567. [Epub ahead of print]
17. Norberg M, Egevad L, Holmberg L, Sparén P, Norlén BJ, Busch C:The sextant protocol for ultrasound-guided core biopsies of the prostate underestimates the presence of cancer. Urology 1997; 50: 562–566.
18. Presti JC Jr, Chang JJ, Bhargava V, Shinohara K: The optimal systematic prostate biopsy scheme should include 8 rather than 6 biopsies:results of a prospective clinical trial. J Urol 2000; 163: 163–166.
19. Barr RG, Destounis S, Lackey LB 2nd, Svensson WE, Balleyguier C,Smith C: Evaluation of breast lesions using sonographic elasticity imaging:a multicenter trial. J Ultrasound Med 2012; 31: 281–287.
20. Zheng XZ, Ji P, Mao HW, Zhang XY, Xia EH, Xing-Gu: A novel approach to assessing changes in prostate stiffness with age using virtual touch tissue quantifi cation. J Ultrasound Med 2011; 30: 387–390.
21. Massmann J, Funk A, Altwein J, Praetorius M: Prostate carcinoma (PC) – an organ-related specifi c pathological neoplasm. Radiologe 2003; 43:423–431.