Inability of shear-wave elastography to distinguish malignant from benign prostate tissue – a comparison of biopsy, whole-mount sectioning and shear-wave elastography

Publications

Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Journal of Ultrasonography

Polish Ultrasound Society (Polskie Towarzystwo Ultrasonograficzne)

Subject: Medicine

GET ALERTS

ISSN: 2084-8404
eISSN: 2451-070X

DESCRIPTION

1
Reader(s)
1
Visit(s)
0
Comment(s)
0
Share(s)

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue / page

Related articles

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 67 (December 2016) > List of articles

Inability of shear-wave elastography to distinguish malignant from benign prostate tissue – a comparison of biopsy, whole-mount sectioning and shear-wave elastography

Markus Porsch * / Claudia Görner / Johann Jakob Wendler / Uwe-Bernd Liehr / Anke Lux / Sandra Siedentopf / Martin Schostak / Maciej Pech

Keywords : prostate cancer, shear wave, elastography, ultrasound, prostate biopsy

Citation Information : Journal of Ultrasonography. Volume 16, Issue 67, Pages 348-358, DOI: https://doi.org/10.15557/JoU.2016.0035

License : (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Received Date : 31-May-2016 / Accepted: 20-June-2016 / Published Online: 24-February-2017

ARTICLE

ABSTRACT

Aim: This study was designed to assess the possible usefulness of shear-wave elastography in differentiating between benign and malignant tissue in prostate neoplasia. Patients and methods: A total of 120 prostate tissue samples were obtained from 10 patients treated by radical prostatectomy and investigated pre-operatively by ultrasound elastography followed by directed biopsy. After resection, whole-mount sectioning and histological examination was performed. The predictions based on shear-wave elastography were compared with biopsy and histological results. Results: The comparison between the results of shear-wave elastography and those of biopsy was performed by receiver operating characteristic analysis, which suggested an optimum cut-off tissue elasticity value of 50 kPa, in agreement with earlier studies aimed at distinguishing between benign and malignant tissue. However, the diagnostic selectivity (and thus the diagnostic power) was poor (area under the curve 0.527, which hardly differs from the value of 0.500 that would correspond to a complete lack of predictive power); furthermore, application of this cut-off value to the samples led to a sensitivity of only 74% and a specificity of only 43%. An analogous comparison between the results of shear-wave elastography and those of whole-mount histology, which itself is more reliable than biopsy, gave an even poorer diagnostic selectivity (sensitivity of 62%, specificity of 35%). Meaningful association with Gleason score was not found for D’Amico risk groups (p = 0.35). Conclusions: The (negative) findings of this investigation add to the dissonance among results of studies investigating the possible value of shear-wave elastography as a diagnostic tool to identify malignant neoplasia. There is a clear need for further research to elucidate the diversity of study results and to identify the usefulness, if any, of the method in question.

Content not available PDF Share

FIGURES & TABLES

REFERENCES

  1. Porsch M, Wendler JJ, Liehr UB, Lux A, Schostak A, Pech M. New aspects in shear-wave elastography of prostate cancer. J Ultrason 2015; 15: 5–14.
  2. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Briers E, van den Bergh RCN, Bolla M, van Casteren NJ et al. EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. V2, 03/2015. https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-Guidelines-Prostate-Cancer-2015-v2.pdf. Downloaded on 08.08.2016.
    [CROSSREF]
  3. Ophir J, Cespedes I, Ponnekanti H, Yazdi Y, Li X: Elastography: a quantitative method for imaging the elasticity of biological tissues. Ultrason Imaging 1991; 13: 111–134.
  4. Woo S, Kim SY, Lee MS, Cho JY, Kim SH: Shear wave elastography assessment in the prostate: an intraobserver reproducibility study. Clin Imaging 2015; 39: 484–487.
  5. 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.
  6. Barr RG, Memo R, Schaub CR: Shear wave ultrasound elastography of the prostate: initial results. Ultrasound Q 2012; 28: 13–20.
  7. 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.
  8. Correas JM, Tissier AM, Khairoune A, Vassiliu V, Méjean A, Hélénon O et al.: Prostate Cancer: Diagnostic Performance of Real-time Shear- Wave Elastography. Radiology 2015; 275: 280–289.
  9. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion–guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. J Amer Med Assoc 2015; 313: 390–397.
  10. D’Amico AV. Risk-based management of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365: 169–171.
  11. Boehm K, Salomon G, Beyer B, Schiffmann J, Simonis K, Graefen Met al. Shear wave elastography for localization of prostate cancer lesions and assessment of elasticity thresholds: implications for targeted biopsies and active surveillance protocols. J Urol. 2015; 193: 794–800.
  12. Conti CB, Cavalcoli F, Fraquelli M, Conte D, Massironi S.World: Ultrasound elastographic techniques in focal liver lesions. J Gastroenterol. 2016; 22: 2647–2656.
  13. Dobruch-Sobczak K, Gumińska A, Bakuła-Zalewska E, Mlosek K, Słapa RZ, Wareluk P et al.: Shear wave elastography in medullary thyroid carcinoma diagnostics. J Ultrason. 2015; 15: 358–367.
  14. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine – Levels of Evidence (March 2009). http://www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels- evidence-march-2009/.
  15. Cosgrove D, Piscaglia F, Bamber J, Bojunga J, Correas JM, Gilja OH et al. EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 2: Clinical applications. Ultraschall Med 2013; 34: 238–253.
  16. Barr RG, Nakashima K, Amy D, Cosgrove D, Farrokh A, Schafer F et al. WFUMB guidelines and recommendations for clinical use of ultrasound elastography: Part 2: Breast. Ultrasound Med Biol; 41: 1148–1160.

EXTRA FILES

COMMENTS