Andrey Morozov1, Vasiliy Kozlov2, Juan Gomez Rivas3, Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh4, Evgeniy Bezrukov1, Alexander Amosov1, Eric Barret5, Mark Taratkin1, Georg Salomon6, Thomas R W Herrmann7,8, Ali Gozen9, Dmitry Enikeev10. 1. Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Bolshaya Pirogovskaya str. 2 bld. 1, Moscow, 119991, Russia. 2. Department of Public Health and Healthcare, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia. 3. Department of Urology, Clinico San Carlos University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. 4. Department of Surgery, S.H. Ho Urology Centre, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. 5. Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France. 6. Martini Clinic, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 7. Department of Urology, Spital Thurgau AG, Pfaffenholzstrasse 4, 8501, Frauenfeld, Switzerland. 8. Department of Urology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. 9. SLK-Kliniken Urology Department, Heidelberg University, Heilbronn, Germany. 10. Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Bolshaya Pirogovskaya str. 2 bld. 1, Moscow, 119991, Russia. dvenikeev@gmail.com.
Abstract
CONTEXT: The value of Histoscanning™ (HS) in prostate cancer (PCa) imaging is much debated, although it has been used in clinical practice for more than 10 years now. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the data on HS from various PCa diagnostic perspectives to determine its potential. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic search using 2 databases (Medline and Scopus) on the query "Histoscan*". The primary endpoint was HS accuracy. The secondary endpoints were: correlation of lesion volume by HS and histology, ability of HS to predict extracapsular extension or seminal vesicle invasion. RESULTS: HS improved cancer detection rate "per core", OR = 16.37 (95% CI 13.2; 20.3), p < 0.0001, I2 = 98% and "per patient", OR = 1.83 (95% CI 1.51; 2.21), p < 0.0001, I2 = 95%. The pooled accuracy was markedly low: sensitivity - 0.2 (95% CI 0.19-0.21), specificity - 0.12 (0.11-0.13), AUC 0.12. 8 of 10 studiers showed no additional value for HS. The pooled accuracy with histology after RP was relatively better, yet still very low: sensitivity - 0.56 (95% CI 0.5-0.63), specificity - 0.23 (0.18-0.28), AUC 0.4. 9 of 12 studies did not show any benefit of HS. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis does not see the incremental value in comparing prostate Histoscanning with conventional TRUS in prostate cancer screening and targeted biopsy. HS proved to be slightly more accurate in predicting extracapsular extension on RP, but the available data does not allow us to draw any conclusions on its effectiveness in practice. Histoscanning is a modification of ultrasound for prostate cancer visualization. The available data suggest its low accuracy in screening and detecting of prostate cancer.
CONTEXT: The value of Histoscanning™ (HS) in prostate cancer (PCa) imaging is much debated, although it has been used in clinical practice for more than 10 years now. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the data on HS from various PCa diagnostic perspectives to determine its potential. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic search using 2 databases (Medline and Scopus) on the query "Histoscan*". The primary endpoint was HS accuracy. The secondary endpoints were: correlation of lesion volume by HS and histology, ability of HS to predict extracapsular extension or seminal vesicle invasion. RESULTS: HS improved cancer detection rate "per core", OR = 16.37 (95% CI 13.2; 20.3), p < 0.0001, I2 = 98% and "per patient", OR = 1.83 (95% CI 1.51; 2.21), p < 0.0001, I2 = 95%. The pooled accuracy was markedly low: sensitivity - 0.2 (95% CI 0.19-0.21), specificity - 0.12 (0.11-0.13), AUC 0.12. 8 of 10 studiers showed no additional value for HS. The pooled accuracy with histology after RP was relatively better, yet still very low: sensitivity - 0.56 (95% CI 0.5-0.63), specificity - 0.23 (0.18-0.28), AUC 0.4. 9 of 12 studies did not show any benefit of HS. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis does not see the incremental value in comparing prostate Histoscanning with conventional TRUS in prostate cancer screening and targeted biopsy. HS proved to be slightly more accurate in predicting extracapsular extension on RP, but the available data does not allow us to draw any conclusions on its effectiveness in practice. Histoscanning is a modification of ultrasound for prostate cancer visualization. The available data suggest its low accuracy in screening and detecting of prostate cancer.
Authors: Jonas Schiffmann; Gisa Mehring; Pierre Tennstedt; Lukas Manka; Katharina Boehm; Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Peter Hammerer; Markus Graefen; Georg Salomon Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-07-28 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Petr V Glybochko; Yuriy G Alyaev; Alexandr V Amosov; German E Krupinov; Dror Nir; Mathias Winkler; Timur M Ganzha Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2017-07-19
Authors: Jonas Schiffmann; Lukas Manka; Katharina Boehm; Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Markus Graefen; Peter Hammerer; Georg Salomon Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-04-10 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Martijn Smeenge; Jelle Barentsz; David Cosgrove; Jean de la Rosette; Theo de Reijke; Scott Eggener; Ferdinand Frauscher; Gyoergy Kovacs; Surena F Matin; Massimo Mischi; Peter Pinto; Ardeshir Rastinehad; Olivier Rouviere; Georg Salomon; Thomas Polascik; Jochen Walz; Hessel Wijkstra; Michael Marberger Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-03-30 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Lucy A M Simmons; Abi Kanthabalan; Manit Arya; Tim Briggs; Susan C Charman; Alex Freeman; James Gelister; Charles Jameson; Neil McCartan; Caroline M Moore; Jan van der Muelen; Mark Emberton; Hashim U Ahmed Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Saqib Javed; Eliot Chadwick; Albert A Edwards; Sabeena Beveridge; Robert Laing; Simon Bott; Christopher Eden; Stephen Langley Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 5.588