PURPOSE: In recent years, various imaging modalities have been developed to improve diagnosis, staging, and localization of early-stage prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: A MEDLINE literature search of the time frame between 01/2007 and 06/2013 was performed on imaging of localized PCa. RESULTS: Conventional transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) is mainly used to guide prostate biopsy. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound is based on the assumption that PCa tissue is hypervascularized and might be better identified after intravenous injection of a microbubble contrast agent. However, results on its additional value for cancer detection are controversial. Computer-based analysis of the transrectal ultrasound signal (C-TRUS) appears to detect cancer in a high rate of patients with previous biopsies. Real-time elastography seems to have higher sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value than conventional TRUS. However, the method still awaits prospective validation. The same is true for prostate histoscanning, an ultrasound-based method for tissue characterization. Currently, multiparametric MRI provides improved tissue visualization of the prostate, which may be helpful in the diagnosis and targeting of prostate lesions. However, most published series are small and suffer from variations in indication, methodology, quality, interpretation, and reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Among ultrasound-based techniques, real-time elastography and C-TRUS seem the most promising techniques. Multiparametric MRI appears to have advantages over conventional T2-weighted MRI in the detection of PCa. Despite these promising results, currently, no recommendation for the routine use of these novel imaging techniques can be made. Prospective studies defining the value of various imaging modalities are urgently needed.
PURPOSE: In recent years, various imaging modalities have been developed to improve diagnosis, staging, and localization of early-stage prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: A MEDLINE literature search of the time frame between 01/2007 and 06/2013 was performed on imaging of localized PCa. RESULTS: Conventional transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) is mainly used to guide prostate biopsy. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound is based on the assumption that PCa tissue is hypervascularized and might be better identified after intravenous injection of a microbubble contrast agent. However, results on its additional value for cancer detection are controversial. Computer-based analysis of the transrectal ultrasound signal (C-TRUS) appears to detect cancer in a high rate of patients with previous biopsies. Real-time elastography seems to have higher sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value than conventional TRUS. However, the method still awaits prospective validation. The same is true for prostate histoscanning, an ultrasound-based method for tissue characterization. Currently, multiparametric MRI provides improved tissue visualization of the prostate, which may be helpful in the diagnosis and targeting of prostate lesions. However, most published series are small and suffer from variations in indication, methodology, quality, interpretation, and reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Among ultrasound-based techniques, real-time elastography and C-TRUS seem the most promising techniques. Multiparametric MRI appears to have advantages over conventional T2-weighted MRI in the detection of PCa. Despite these promising results, currently, no recommendation for the routine use of these novel imaging techniques can be made. Prospective studies defining the value of various imaging modalities are urgently needed.
Authors: Axel Heidenreich; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Malcolm Mason; Vsevolod Matveev; Nicolas Mottet; Hans-Peter Schmid; Theo van der Kwast; Thomas Wiegel; Filliberto Zattoni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: E M Jung; P Wiggermann; C Greis; F Eder; J Ehrich; W Jung; A G Schreyer; C Stroszczynski; R Ganzer Journal: Clin Hemorheol Microcirc Date: 2012 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Caroline M A Hoeks; Martijn G Schouten; Joyce G R Bomers; Stefan P Hoogendoorn; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Thomas Hambrock; Henk Vergunst; J P Michiel Sedelaar; Jurgen J Fütterer; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: T Enzmann; T Tokas; K Korte; M Ritter; P Hammerer; L Franzaring; H Heynemann; H-W Gottfried; H Bertermann; M Meyer-Schwickerath; B Wirth; A Pelzer; T Loch Journal: Urologe A Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Georgios Hatzichristodoulou; Stefan Wagenpfeil; Gregor Weirich; Michael Autenrieth; Tobias Maurer; Mark Thalgott; Thomas Horn; Matthias Heck; Kathleen Herkommer; Jürgen E Gschwend; Hubert Kübler Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Timur H Kuru; Kasra Saeb-Parsy; Andrea Cantiani; Julia Frey; Riccardo Lombardo; Eva Serrao; Gabriele Gaziev; Brendan Koo; Matthias Roethke; Vincent Gnanapragasam; Anne Warren; Andrew Doble; Boris Hadaschik; Christof Kastner Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-06-11 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Thomas Auer; Michael Edlinger; Jasmin Bektic; Udo Nagele; Thomas Herrmann; Georg Schäfer; Friedrich Aigner; Daniel Junker Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-08-10 Impact factor: 4.226