Literature DB >> 16251396

Prostate cancer: three-dimensional sonoelastography for in vitro detection.

Lawrence S Taylor1, Deborah J Rubens, Brian C Porter, Zhe Wu, Raymond B Baggs, P Anthony di Sant'Agnese, Gyongyi Nadasdy, David Pasternack, Edward M Messing, Priya Nigwekar, Kevin J Parker.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) sonoelastographic imaging, relative to that of gray-scale ultrasonography (US), in the in vitro detection of prostate cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the institutional review board and was HIPAA compliant. Informed consent was obtained from all patients. Nineteen prostatectomy specimens from patients aged 46-70 years with biopsy-proved prostate cancer were scanned in three dimensions by using conventional B-mode US and sonoelastography with vibrations of more than 100 Hz. Step-sectioned whole-mount histologic specimens were used to create a 3D volume of the prostate and the tumors within it. B-mode US scans and regions of low vibration on the sonoelastographic images (hard regions) were formatted in three dimensions. The lesions in the 19 cases were classified into two groups, as follows: G1 lesions were pathologically confirmed tumors with a volume of at least 1.0 cm3, and G2 lesions were pathologically confirmed tumors smaller than 1.0 cm3. G1 lesions were evaluated with B-mode US and sonoelastography and classified as true-positive, false-positive, true-negative, or false-negative; G2 lesions were evaluated only with sonoelastography. Findings at histologic examination were used as the reference standard. True-positive findings necessitated 3D lesion correlation between pathologic and imaging data. Conventional definitions of accuracy and sensitivity were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: For G1 lesions (seven lesions with a volume of at least 1.0 cm3), sonoelastography had an accuracy of 55% and a sensitivity of 71% and B-mode US had an accuracy of 17% and a sensitivity of 29%. The mean tumor volume was 3.1 cm3 +/- 2.1 (standard deviation). For G2 lesions (22 lesions with a volume of less than 1.0 cm3), the mean tumor volume was 0.32 cm3 +/- 0.21. Sonoelastography had an accuracy of 34% and a sensitivity of 41%; there were six false-positive findings.
CONCLUSION: Sonoelastography performed considerably better than did gray-scale US in the depiction of prostate cancer for tumors with volumes of more than 1 cm3. RSNA, 2005

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16251396     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2373041573

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  12 in total

Review 1.  Medical ultrasound: imaging of soft tissue strain and elasticity.

Authors:  Peter N T Wells; Hai-Dong Liang
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2011-06-16       Impact factor: 4.118

Review 2.  Clinical practice guidelines for ultrasound elastography: prostate.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 1.314

3.  Evaluation of real-time qualitative sonoelastography of focal lesions in the parotid and submandibular glands: applications and limitations.

Authors:  Kunwar S S Bhatia; Darshana D Rasalkar; Yim-Ping Lee; Ka-Tak Wong; Ann D King; Hok-Yuen Yuen; Anil T Ahuja
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-04-21       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Effectiveness of Quantitative Shear Wave Elastography for the Prediction of Axillary Lymph Node Metastasis.

Authors:  Yingying Cheng; Guofu Li; Hui Jing; Shasha Yuan; Lei Zhang; Wen Cheng
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2022-06-28       Impact factor: 2.650

Review 5.  Tissue elasticity properties as biomarkers for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Kenneth Hoyt; Benjamin Castaneda; Man Zhang; Priya Nigwekar; P Anthony di Sant'agnese; Jean V Joseph; John Strang; Deborah J Rubens; Kevin J Parker
Journal:  Cancer Biomark       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.388

6.  Prostate cancer detection with real-time elastography using a bi-plane transducer: comparison with step section radical prostatectomy pathology.

Authors:  Yunkai Zhu; Yaqing Chen; Tingyue Qi; Jun Jiang; Jun Qi; Yongjiang Yu; Xiaohong Yao; Wenbin Guan
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-08-12       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Is sonoelastography a helpful method for evaluation of parotid tumors?

Authors:  Małgorzata Wierzbicka; Jarosław Kałużny; Ewelina Szczepanek-Parulska; Adam Stangierski; Edyta Gurgul; Tomasz Kopeć; Marek Ruchała
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2012-12-13       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 8.  Sono-elastography for Differentiating Benign and Malignant Cervical Lymph Nodes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Mahsa Ghajarzadeh; Mehdi Mohammadifar; Kamran Azarkhish; Seyed Hassan Emami-Razavi
Journal:  Int J Prev Med       Date:  2014-12

9.  A pilot study on real-time transvaginal ultrasonographic elastography of cystic ovarian lesions.

Authors:  Nazan Ciledag; Kemal Arda; Elif Aktas; Bilgin Kadri Aribas
Journal:  Indian J Med Res       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 2.375

10.  Identifying Clinically Significant Prostate Cancers using 3-D In Vivo Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse Imaging with Whole-Mount Histology Validation.

Authors:  Mark L Palmeri; Tyler J Glass; Zachary A Miller; Stephen J Rosenzweig; Andrew Buck; Thomas J Polascik; Rajan T Gupta; Alison F Brown; John Madden; Kathryn R Nightingale
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2016-03-03       Impact factor: 2.998

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.