Literature DB >> 29238867

A direct comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection and prediction of aggressiveness.

Alexander D J Baur1, Julia Schwabe2, Julian Rogasch3, Andreas Maxeiner4, Tobias Penzkofer5, Carsten Stephan4,6, Marc Rudl6,7, Bernd Hamm5, Ernst-Michael Jung8, Thom Fischer2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) analyse tissue vascularization. We evaluated if CEUS can provide comparable information as DCE-MRI for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) and prediction of its aggressiveness.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A post-hoc evaluation of 92 patients was performed. In each patient CEUS and DCE-MRI parameters of the most suspicious lesion identified on MRI were analysed. The predictive values for discrimination between benign lesions, low-/intermediate- and high-grade PCa were evaluated. Results of targeted biopsy served as reference standard (benign lesions, n=51; low- and intermediate-grade PCa [Gleason grade group 1 and 2], n=22; high-grade PCa [≥ Gleason grade group 3], n=19).
RESULTS: In peripheral zone lesions of all tested CEUS parameters only time to peak (TTPCEUS) showed significant differences between benign lesions and PCa (AUC 0.65). Of all tested DCE-MRI parameters, rate constant (Kep) was the best discriminator of high-grade PCa in the whole prostate (AUC 0.83) and in peripheral zone lesions (AUC 0.89).
CONCLUSION: DCE-MRI showed a superior performance for detection of PCa and prediction of its aggressiveness. CEUS and DCE-MRI performed better in peripheral zone lesions than in transition zone lesions. KEY POINTS: • DCE-MRI gathers information about vascularization and capillary permeability characteristics of tissues. • DCE-MRI can detect PCa and predict its aggressiveness. • CEUS also gathers information about vascularization of tissues. • For detection of PCa and prediction of aggressiveness DCE-MRI performed superiorly. • Both imaging techniques performed better in peripheral zone lesions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Contrast media; Detection; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate cancer; Transrectal ultrasound

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29238867     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-5192-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  35 in total

1.  Transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy does not reliably identify dominant cancer location in men with low-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Samuel L Washington; Michael Bonham; Jared M Whitson; Janet E Cowan; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 5.588

2.  The EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations on the Clinical Practice of Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS): update 2011 on non-hepatic applications.

Authors:  F Piscaglia; C Nolsøe; C F Dietrich; D O Cosgrove; O H Gilja; M Bachmann Nielsen; T Albrecht; L Barozzi; M Bertolotto; O Catalano; M Claudon; D A Clevert; J M Correas; M D'Onofrio; F M Drudi; J Eyding; M Giovannini; M Hocke; A Ignee; E M Jung; A S Klauser; N Lassau; E Leen; G Mathis; A Saftoiu; G Seidel; P S Sidhu; G ter Haar; D Timmerman; H P Weskott
Journal:  Ultraschall Med       Date:  2011-08-26       Impact factor: 6.548

3.  Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Authors:  M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Arvin K George; Jason Rothwax; Nabeel Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Howard L Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-01-27       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Evaluation of semi-quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI parameters for prostate cancer in correlation to whole-mount histopathology.

Authors:  Sofie Isebaert; Frederik De Keyzer; Karin Haustermans; Evelyne Lerut; Tania Roskams; Ilse Roebben; Hendrik Van Poppel; Steven Joniau; Raymond Oyen
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2011-02-23       Impact factor: 3.528

5.  Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging Curve-type Analysis: Is It Helpful in the Differentiation of Prostate Cancer from Healthy Peripheral Zone?

Authors:  Barry G Hansford; Yahui Peng; Yulei Jiang; Michael W Vannier; Tatjana Antic; Stephen Thomas; Stephanie McCann; Aytekin Oto
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-01-05       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 6.  The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; Lars Egevad; Mahul B Amin; Brett Delahunt; John R Srigley; Peter A Humphrey
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 6.394

7.  Prognostic value of microvessel density in prostate cancer: a tissue microarray study.

Authors:  Andreas Erbersdobler; Hendrik Isbarn; Kira Dix; Isabel Steiner; Thorsten Schlomm; Martina Mirlacher; Guido Sauter; Alexander Haese
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2009-08-28       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 8.  Angiogenesis imaging in the management of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Anwar R Padhani; Christopher J Harvey; David O Cosgrove
Journal:  Nat Clin Pract Urol       Date:  2005-12

9.  Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study.

Authors:  Hashim U Ahmed; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Louise C Brown; Rhian Gabe; Richard Kaplan; Mahesh K Parmar; Yolanda Collaco-Moraes; Katie Ward; Richard G Hindley; Alex Freeman; Alex P Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Chris Parker; Mark Emberton
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2017-01-20       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012.

Authors:  Jelle O Barentsz; Jonathan Richenberg; Richard Clements; Peter Choyke; Sadhna Verma; Geert Villeirs; Olivier Rouviere; Vibeke Logager; Jurgen J Fütterer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-02-10       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Machine learning for medical ultrasound: status, methods, and future opportunities.

Authors:  Laura J Brattain; Brian A Telfer; Manish Dhyani; Joseph R Grajo; Anthony E Samir
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2018-04

2.  Sentinel lymph node metastasis diagnosis using ultrasound plus magnetic resonance lymphangiography in breast cancer.

Authors:  Yishan He; Oufei Liu; Jing Su; Qing Hong; Mengquan Li
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2022-06

3.  Early prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy using contrast-enhanced ultrasound in breast cancer.

Authors:  Juan Peng; Huan Pu; Yan Jia; Chuang Chen; Xiao-Kang Ke; Qing Zhou
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-05-14       Impact factor: 1.889

4.  Aptamer-conjugated multi-walled carbon nanotubes as a new targeted ultrasound contrast agent for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Fenfen Gu; Chuling Hu; Qingming Xia; Chunai Gong; Shen Gao; Zhongjian Chen
Journal:  J Nanopart Res       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 2.253

Review 5.  Alternatives for MRI in Prostate Cancer Diagnostics-Review of Current Ultrasound-Based Techniques.

Authors:  Adam Gurwin; Kamil Kowalczyk; Klaudia Knecht-Gurwin; Paweł Stelmach; Łukasz Nowak; Wojciech Krajewski; Tomasz Szydełko; Bartosz Małkiewicz
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-07       Impact factor: 6.575

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.