BACKGROUND: We evaluated the accuracy and feasibility of real-time elastography for detecting prostate cancer, using prostatectomy specimens. METHODS: This study was based on clinicopathological findings in 51 patients with prostate cancer who were referred for elastography at the time of prostate biopsy. We compared transverse pathology sections with elastographic moving images (EMIs) to determine the detection rate of cancer, the relationship between tumor location and the elastographic findings, and the relationship between the Gleason score and the elastographic findings. RESULTS: In 15 patients (29%), all EMIs were in complete agreement with tumor location (category I), in 28 patients (55%), the EMIs agreed with tumor location, but showed some disagreement (category II), and in 8 patients (16%) there was disagreement of the elastographic findings with tumor location or the tumors were undetectable by elastography (category III). However, in category III, all tumors were detected as low-echoic by B-mode ultrasonography. We divided the prostate into three different regions (anterior, middle, and posterior), and found that 30/32 (94%) anterior tumors, 13/17 (76%) middle tumors, and 16/28 (57%) posterior tumors were detected by elastography. The proportions of cancers detected by elastography (categories I+II/total) was 100% in the patients with a Gleason score of 6, 85% in those with a score of 7 or 8, and 63% in those with a score of 9 or 10. CONCLUSION: Real-time elastography in conjunction with B-mode ultrasonography significantly improves the detection of prostate cancer. One of the characteristic findings of elastography is its excellent detection of anterior tumors. The low detection rate of high-grade tumors in this analysis was likely due to the predominance of high-grade tumors in a peripheral location compared to the anterior location of the low-grade tumors.
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the accuracy and feasibility of real-time elastography for detecting prostate cancer, using prostatectomy specimens. METHODS: This study was based on clinicopathological findings in 51 patients with prostate cancer who were referred for elastography at the time of prostate biopsy. We compared transverse pathology sections with elastographic moving images (EMIs) to determine the detection rate of cancer, the relationship between tumor location and the elastographic findings, and the relationship between the Gleason score and the elastographic findings. RESULTS: In 15 patients (29%), all EMIs were in complete agreement with tumor location (category I), in 28 patients (55%), the EMIs agreed with tumor location, but showed some disagreement (category II), and in 8 patients (16%) there was disagreement of the elastographic findings with tumor location or the tumors were undetectable by elastography (category III). However, in category III, all tumors were detected as low-echoic by B-mode ultrasonography. We divided the prostate into three different regions (anterior, middle, and posterior), and found that 30/32 (94%) anterior tumors, 13/17 (76%) middle tumors, and 16/28 (57%) posterior tumors were detected by elastography. The proportions of cancers detected by elastography (categories I+II/total) was 100% in the patients with a Gleason score of 6, 85% in those with a score of 7 or 8, and 63% in those with a score of 9 or 10. CONCLUSION: Real-time elastography in conjunction with B-mode ultrasonography significantly improves the detection of prostate cancer. One of the characteristic findings of elastography is its excellent detection of anterior tumors. The low detection rate of high-grade tumors in this analysis was likely due to the predominance of high-grade tumors in a peripheral location compared to the anterior location of the low-grade tumors.
Authors: Katharina König; Ulrich Scheipers; Andreas Pesavento; Andreas Lorenz; Helmut Ermert; Theodor Senge Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Evis Sala; Steven C Eberhardt; Oguz Akin; Chaya S Moskowitz; Chinyere N Onyebuchi; Kentaro Kuroiwa; Nicole Ishill; Michael J Zelefsky; James A Eastham; Hedvig Hricak Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Michael Mullerad; Hedvig Hricak; Kentaro Kuroiwa; Darko Pucar; Hui-Ni Chen; Michael W Kattan; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Gerald W Hull; Farhang Rabbani; Farhat Abbas; Thomas M Wheeler; Michael W Kattan; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Indu Srinivasan; Shou-Jiang Tang; Andreas S Vilmann; John Menachery; Peter Vilmann Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-11-28 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Liang Zhai; John Madden; Wen-Chi Foo; Mark L Palmeri; Vladimir Mouraviev; Thomas J Polascik; Kathryn R Nightingale Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Yu Liu; Jingfei Liu; Brett Z Fite; Josquin Foiret; Asaf Ilovitsh; J Kent Leach; Erik Dumont; Charles F Caskey; Katherine W Ferrara Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Azra Alizad; Mohammad Mehrmohammadi; Farid G Mitri; Brian J Davis; Thomas J Sebo; Lance A Mynderse; Randall R Kinnick; James F Greenleaf; Mostafa Fatemi Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Michael Mitterberger; Wolfgang Horninger; Friedrich Aigner; Germar M Pinggera; Ilona Steppan; Peter Rehder; Ferdinand Frauscher Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 3.909