Gregg Eure1, Daryl Fanney2, Jefferson Lin1, Brian Wodlinger3, Sangeet Ghai4. 1. Urology of Virginia, Virginia Beach, VA, United States. 2. MRI & CT Diagnostics, Virginia Beach, VA, United States. 3. Exact Imaging, Markham, ON, Canada. 4. Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, University Health Network-Mount Sinai Hospital-Women's College Hospital, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Active surveillance monitoring of prostate cancer is unique in that most patients have low-grade disease that is not well-visualized by any common imaging technique. High-resolution (29 MHz) micro-ultrasound is a new, real-time modality that has been demonstrated to be sensitive to significant prostate cancer and effective for biopsy targeting. This study compares micro-ultrasound imaging with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and conventional ultrasound for visualizing prostate cancer in active surveillance. METHODS: Nine patients on active surveillance were imaged with multiparametric (mp) MRI prior to biopsy. During the biopsy procedure, imaging and target identification was first performed using conventional ultrasound, then using micro-ultrasound. The mpMRI report was then unblinded and used to determine cognitive fusion targets. Using micro-ultrasound, biopsy samples were taken from targets in each modality, plus 12 systematic samples. RESULTS: mpMRI and micro-ultrasound both demonstrated superior sensitivity to Gleason sum 7 or higher cancer compared to conventional ultrasound (p=0.02 McNemar's test). Micro-ultrasound detected 89% of clinically significant cancer, compared to 56% for mpMRI. CONCLUSIONS: Micro-ultrasound may provide similar sensitivity to clinically significant prostate cancer as mpMRI and visualize all significant mpMRI targets. Unlike mpMRI, micro-ultrasound is performed in the office, in real-time during the biopsy procedure, and so is expected to maintain the cost-effectiveness of conventional ultrasound. Larger studies are needed before these results may be applied in a clinical setting.
INTRODUCTION: Active surveillance monitoring of prostate cancer is unique in that most patients have low-grade disease that is not well-visualized by any common imaging technique. High-resolution (29 MHz) micro-ultrasound is a new, real-time modality that has been demonstrated to be sensitive to significant prostate cancer and effective for biopsy targeting. This study compares micro-ultrasound imaging with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and conventional ultrasound for visualizing prostate cancer in active surveillance. METHODS: Nine patients on active surveillance were imaged with multiparametric (mp) MRI prior to biopsy. During the biopsy procedure, imaging and target identification was first performed using conventional ultrasound, then using micro-ultrasound. The mpMRI report was then unblinded and used to determine cognitive fusion targets. Using micro-ultrasound, biopsy samples were taken from targets in each modality, plus 12 systematic samples. RESULTS: mpMRI and micro-ultrasound both demonstrated superior sensitivity to Gleason sum 7 or higher cancer compared to conventional ultrasound (p=0.02 McNemar's test). Micro-ultrasound detected 89% of clinically significant cancer, compared to 56% for mpMRI. CONCLUSIONS: Micro-ultrasound may provide similar sensitivity to clinically significant prostate cancer as mpMRI and visualize all significant mpMRI targets. Unlike mpMRI, micro-ultrasound is performed in the office, in real-time during the biopsy procedure, and so is expected to maintain the cost-effectiveness of conventional ultrasound. Larger studies are needed before these results may be applied in a clinical setting.
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Ruth P Lim; Mershad Haghighi; Molly B Somberg; James S Babb; Samir S Taneja Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jurgen J Fütterer; Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Tom W J Scheenen; Gerrit J Jager; Christina A Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa; J Alfred Witjes; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-11-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Francesca V Mertan; Matthew D Greer; Joanna H Shih; Arvin K George; Michael Kongnyuy; Akhil Muthigi; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Martijn G Schouten; Marloes van der Leest; Morgan Pokorny; Martijn Hoogenboom; Jelle O Barentsz; Les C Thompson; Jurgen J Fütterer Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-01-04 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ting Martin Ma; Jeffrey J Tosoian; Edward M Schaeffer; Patricia Landis; Sacha Wolf; Katarzyna J Macura; Jonathan I Epstein; Mufaddal Mamawala; H Ballentine Carter Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-05-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jelle O Barentsz; Jeffrey C Weinreb; Sadhna Verma; Harriet C Thoeny; Clare M Tempany; Faina Shtern; Anwar R Padhani; Daniel Margolis; Katarzyna J Macura; Masoom A Haider; Francois Cornud; Peter L Choyke Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-09-08 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Christian P Pavlovich; Toby C Cornish; Jeffrey K Mullins; Joel Fradin; Lynda Z Mettee; Jason T Connor; Adam C Reese; Frederic B Askin; Rachael Luck; Jonathan I Epstein; Harry B Burke Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2013-04-02 Impact factor: 3.498
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
Authors: C P Pavlovich; M E Hyndman; G Eure; S Ghai; Y Caumartin; E Herget; J D Young; D Wiseman; C Caughlin; R Gray; S Wason; L Mettee; M Lodde; A Toi; T Dujardin; R Lance; S M Schatz; M Fabrizio; J B Malcolm; V Fradet Journal: BJUI Compass Date: 2020-11-28
Authors: Indrani Bhattacharya; Yash S Khandwala; Sulaiman Vesal; Wei Shao; Qianye Yang; Simon J C Soerensen; Richard E Fan; Pejman Ghanouni; Christian A Kunder; James D Brooks; Yipeng Hu; Mirabela Rusu; Geoffrey A Sonn Journal: Ther Adv Urol Date: 2022-10-10