Literature DB >> 32078707

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound with dispersion analysis for the localization of prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens.

Arnoud W Postema1, Maudy C W Gayet2,3, Ruud J G van Sloun4, Rogier R Wildeboer4, Christophe K Mannaerts1, C Dilara Savci-Heijink5, Stefan G Schalk4, Amir Kajtazovic6, Henk van der Poel7, Peter F A Mulders8, Harrie P Beerlage1,4, Massimo Mischi4, Hessel Wijkstra1,4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the value of two-dimensional (2D) contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) imaging and the additional value of contrast ultrasound dispersion imaging (CUDI) for the localization of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).
METHODS: In this multicentre study, subjects scheduled for a radical prostatectomy underwent 2D CEUS imaging preoperatively. CUDI maps were generated from the CEUS recordings. Both CEUS recordings and CUDI maps were scored on the likelihood of presenting csPCa (any Gleason ≥ 4 + 3 and Gleason 3 + 4 larger than 0.5 mL) by five observers and compared to radical prostatectomy histopathology. An automated three-dimensional (3D) fusion protocol was used to match imaging with histopathology. Receiver operator curve (ROC) analysis was performed per observer and imaging modality.
RESULTS: 133 of 216 (62%) patients were included in the final analysis. Average area under the ROC for all five readers for CEUS, CUDI and the combination was 0.78, 0.79 and 0.78, respectively. This yields a sensitivity and specificity of 81 and 64% for CEUS, 83 and 56% for CUDI and 83 and 55% for the combination. Interobserver agreement for CEUS, CUDI and the combination showed kappa values of 0.20, 0.18 and 0.18 respectively.
CONCLUSION: The sensitivity and specificity of 2D CEUS and CUDI for csPCa localization are moderate. Despite compressing CEUS in one image, CUDI showed a similar performance to 2D CEUS. With a sensitivity of 83% at cutoff point 3, it could become a useful imaging procedure, especially with 4D acquisition, improved quantification and combination with other US imaging techniques such as elastography.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Contrast-enhanced ultrasound; Dispersion analysis; Prostate cancer; Quantitative imaging; Radical prostatectomy

Year:  2020        PMID: 32078707     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-020-03103-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  36 in total

1.  Poor standard mp-MRI and routine biopsy fail to precisely predict intraprostatic tumor localization.

Authors:  Andrea Billing; Alexander Buchner; Christian Stief; Alexander Roosen
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Why and Where do We Miss Significant Prostate Cancer with Multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging followed by Magnetic Resonance-guided and Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Men?

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

Review 3.  What is still needed to make focal therapy an accepted segment of standard therapy?

Authors:  Willemien van den Bos; Berrend G Muller; Behfar Ehdaie; Peter Scardino; Jean J M C H de la Rosette
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 2.309

Review 4.  Comparison of image-guided targeted biopsies versus systematic randomized biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic literature review of well-designed studies.

Authors:  Antoine van Hove; Pierre-Henri Savoie; Charlotte Maurin; Serge Brunelle; Gwenaëlle Gravis; Naji Salem; Jochen Walz
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-06-12       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 5.  What Is the Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Excluding Prostate Cancer at Biopsy? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel.

Authors:  Paul C Moldovan; Thomas Van den Broeck; Richard Sylvester; Lorenzo Marconi; Joaquim Bellmunt; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Michel Bolla; Erik Briers; Marcus G Cumberbatch; Nicola Fossati; Tobias Gross; Ann M Henry; Steven Joniau; Theo H van der Kwast; Vsevolod B Matveev; Henk G van der Poel; Maria De Santis; Ivo G Schoots; Thomas Wiegel; Cathy Yuhong Yuan; Philip Cornford; Nicolas Mottet; Thomas B Lam; Olivier Rouvière
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2017-03-21       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 6.  The Contemporary Role of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Ariel A Schulman; Christina Sze; Efrat Tsivian; Rajan T Gupta; Judd W Moul; Thomas J Polascik
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 7.  Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ivo G Schoots; Monique J Roobol; Daan Nieboer; Chris H Bangma; Ewout W Steyerberg; M G Myriam Hunink
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent.

Authors:  Nicolas Mottet; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Erik Briers; Marcus G Cumberbatch; Maria De Santis; Nicola Fossati; Tobias Gross; Ann M Henry; Steven Joniau; Thomas B Lam; Malcolm D Mason; Vsevolod B Matveev; Paul C Moldovan; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Thomas Van den Broeck; Henk G van der Poel; Theo H van der Kwast; Olivier Rouvière; Ivo G Schoots; Thomas Wiegel; Philip Cornford
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2016-08-25       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: The role of systematic and targeted biopsies.

Authors:  Christopher P Filson; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J A Margolis; Jiaoti Huang; Patricia Lieu; Frederick J Dorey; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 10.  Cost consideration in utilization of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ryan Hutchinson; Yair Lotan
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2017-06
View more
  2 in total

1.  The combined value of mpUS and mpMRI-TRUS fusion for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Xin Zhang; Danyan Liang; Hua Hong
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2022-10-18       Impact factor: 5.605

Review 2.  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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.