Contrast-enhanced ultrasound with dispersion analysis for the localization of prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens.
Contrast-enhanced ultrasound
Dispersion analysis
Prostate cancer
Quantitative imaging
Radical prostatectomy
Journal
World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2020
Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
05
09
2019
accepted:
21
01
2020
pubmed:
23
2
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
21
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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). 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. 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. 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32078707
doi: 10.1007/s00345-020-03103-4
pii: 10.1007/s00345-020-03103-4
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2811-2818Subventions
Organisme : KWF Kankerbestrijding
ID : UVA 2013-5941
Références
Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, Santis M et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71(4):618–629
pubmed: 27568654
Schulman AA, Sze C, Tsivian E, Gupta RT, Moul JW, Polascik TJ (2017) The contemporary role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance for prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 18(7):52
pubmed: 28589398
van den Bos W, Muller BG, Ehdaie B, Scardino P, de la Rosette JJ (2014) What is still needed to make focal therapy an accepted segment of standard therapy? Curr Opin Urol 24(3):247–255
pubmed: 24637317
van Hove A, Savoie PH, Maurin C, Brunelle S, Gravis G, Salem N et al (2014) Comparison of image-guided targeted biopsies versus systematic randomized biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic literature review of well-designed studies. World J Urol 32(4):847–858
pubmed: 24919965
Haider MA, Yao X, Loblaw A, Finelli A (2016) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 28(9):550–567
Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG (2015) 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. Eur Urol 68(3):438–450
pubmed: 25480312
Bjurlin MA, Mendhiratta N, Wysock JS, Taneja SS (2016) Multiparametric MRI and targeted prostate biopsy: improvements in cancer detection, localization, and risk assessment. Cent Eur J Urol 69(1):9–18
Billing A, Buchner A, Stief C, Roosen A (2016) Poor standard mp-MRI and routine biopsy fail to precisely predict intraprostatic tumor localization. World J Urol 34(10):1383–1388
pubmed: 26906031
Filson CP, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Huang J, Lieu P, Dorey FJ et al (2016) Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer 122(6):884–892
pubmed: 26749141
Hutchinson R, Lotan Y (2017) Cost consideration in utilization of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol 6(3):345–354
pubmed: 28725576
Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R, Marconi L, Bellmunt J, van den Bergh RCN et al (2017) 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. Eur Urol 72(2):250–266
pubmed: 28336078
Schouten MG, van der Leest M, Pokorny M, Hoogenboom M, Barentsz JO, Thompson LC et al (2017) 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-naive men? Eur Urol 71(6):896–903
pubmed: 28063613
Sonn GA, Fan RE, Ghanouni P, Wang NN, Brooks JD, Loening AM et al (2017) Prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretation varies substantially across radiologists. Eur Urol Focus 5:592–599
pubmed: 29226826
Schoots IG (2016) Omission of systematic transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy from the MRI targeted approach in men with previous negative prostate biopsy might still be premature. Ann Transl Med 4(10):205
pubmed: 27294246
Mitterberger M, Horninger W, Aigner F, Pinggera GM, Steppan I, Rehder P et al (2010) Ultrasound of the prostate. Cancer Imaging 10:40–48
pubmed: 20199941
Pavlovich CP, Cornish TC, Mullins JK, Fradin J, Mettee LZ, Connor JT et al (2014) High-resolution transrectal ultrasound: pilot study of a novel technique for imaging clinically localized prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 32(1):34 e27–34 e32
Correas JM, Tissier AM, Khairoune A, Khoury G, Eiss D, Helenon O (2013) Ultrasound elastography of the prostate: state of the art. Diagn Interv Imaging 94(5):551–560
pubmed: 23607924
Correas JM, Tissier AM, Khairoune A, Vassiliu V, Mejean A, Helenon O et al (2015) Prostate cancer: diagnostic performance of real-time shear-wave elastography. Radiology 275(1):280–289
Good DW, Stewart GD, Hammer S, Scanlan P, Shu W, Phipps S et al (2014) Elasticity as a biomarker for prostate cancer: a systematic review. BJU Int 113(4):523–534
Russo G, Mischi M, Scheepens W, Rosette JJ, Wijkstra H (2012) Angiogenesis in prostate cancer: onset, progression and imaging. BJU Int 110(11 Pt C):E794–E808
pubmed: 22958524
Postema A, Idzenga T, Mischi M, Frinking P, de la Rosette J, Wijkstra H (2015) Ultrasound modalities and quantification: developments of multiparametric ultrasonography, a new modality to detect, localize and target prostatic tumors. Curr Opin Urol 25(3):191–197
pubmed: 25695792
Seitz M, Gratzke C, Schlenker B, Buchner A, Karl A, Roosen A et al (2011) Contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasound (CE-TRUS) with cadence-contrast pulse sequence (CPS) technology for the identification of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 29(3):295–301
pubmed: 19523857
Mischi M, Kuenen MP, Wijkstra H (2012) Angiogenesis imaging by spatiotemporal analysis of ultrasound contrast agent dispersion kinetics. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 59(4):621–629
pubmed: 22547274
van Sloun RJ, Demi L, Postema AW, de la Rosette JJ, Wijkstra H, Mischi M (2017) Ultrasound-contrast-agent dispersion and velocity imaging for prostate cancer localization. Med Image Anal 35:610–619
pubmed: 27723564
Wildeboer RR, Postema AW, Demi L, Kuenen MPJ, Wijkstra H, Mischi M (2017) Multiparametric dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 27(8):3226–3234
pubmed: 28004162
Wink M, Frauscher F, Cosgrove D, Chapelon JY, Palwein L, Mitterberger M et al (2008) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and prostate cancer; a multicentre European research coordination project. Eur Urol 54(5):982–992
pubmed: 18584944
Kuenen MP, Saidov TA, Wijkstra H, de la Rosette JJ, Mischi M (2013) Spatiotemporal correlation of ultrasound contrast agent dilution curves for angiogenesis localization by dispersion imaging. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 60(12):2665–2669
pubmed: 24297031
Wildeboer RR (2017) Three-dimensional histopathological reconstruction as a reliable ground truth for prostate cancer studies. Biomed Phys Eng Express 3:035014
Schalk SG, Postema A, Saidov TA, Demi L, Smeenge M, de la Rosette JJ et al (2016) 3D surface-based registration of ultrasound and histology in prostate cancer imaging. Comput Med Imaging Graph 47:29–39
pubmed: 26647110
Wildeboer RR, van Sloun RJG, Postema AW, Mannaerts CK, Gayet M, Beerlage HP et al (2018) Accurate validation of ultrasound imaging of prostate cancer: a review of challenges in registration of imaging and histopathology. J Ultrasound 21(3):197–207
pubmed: 30062440
Halpern EJ, McCue PA, Aksnes AK, Hagen EK, Frauscher F, Gomella LG (2002) Contrast-enhanced US of the prostate with Sonazoid: comparison with whole-mount prostatectomy specimens in 12 patients. Radiology 222(2):361–366
pubmed: 11818600
Matsumoto K, Nakagawa K, Hashiguchi A, Kono H, Kikuchi E, Nagata H et al (2010) Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography of the prostate with Sonazoid. Jpn J Clin Oncol 40(11):1099–1104
pubmed: 20581002
Sano F, Terao H, Kawahara T, Miyoshi Y, Sasaki T, Noguchi K et al (2011) Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography of the prostate: various imaging findings that indicate prostate cancer. BJU Int 107(9):1404–1410
pubmed: 21040365
Postema AW, Scheltema MJ, Mannaerts CK, Van Sloun RJ, Idzenga T, Mischi M et al (2017) The prostate cancer detection rates of CEUS-targeted versus MRI-targeted versus systematic TRUS-guided biopsies in biopsy-naive men: a prospective, comparative clinical trial using the same patients. BMC Urol 17(1):27
pubmed: 28381220
Toner L, Weerakoon M, Bolton DM, Ryan A, Katelaris N, Lawrentschuk N (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: comparative studies including radical prostatectomy specimens and template transperineal biopsy. Prostate Int 3(4):107–114
pubmed: 26779455
Isebaert S, Van den Bergh L, Haustermans K, Joniau S, Lerut E, De Wever L et al (2013) Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer localization in correlation to whole-mount histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 37(6):1392–1401
pubmed: 23172614
Toner L, Papa N, Perera M, Katelaris N, Weerakoon M, Chin K et al (2017) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer-a comparative study including radical prostatectomy specimens. World J Urol 35(6):935–941
pubmed: 27785560
Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V, Rastinehad AR, Bernardo M, Pohida T et al (2011) Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol 186(5):1818–1824
pubmed: 21944089
Wildeboer RR, Van Sloun RJG, Schalk SG, Mannaerts CK, Van Der Linden JC, Huang P et al (2018) Convective-dispersion modeling in 3D contrast-ultrasound imaging for the localization of prostate cancer. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 37(12):2593–2602
pubmed: 29993539
Grey A, Ahmed HU (2016) Multiparametric ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 26(1):114–119
pubmed: 26555694
Brock M, Eggert T, Palisaar RJ, Roghmann F, Braun K, Loppenberg B et al (2013) Multiparametric ultrasound of the prostate: adding contrast enhanced ultrasound to real-time elastography to detect histopathologically confirmed cancer. J Urol 189(1):93–98
pubmed: 23164379
Mannaerts CK, Wildeboer RR, Postema AW, Hagemann J, Budaus L, Tilki D et al (2018) Multiparametric ultrasound: evaluation of greyscale, shear wave elastography and contrast-enhanced ultrasound for prostate cancer detection and localization in correlation to radical prostatectomy specimens. BMC Urol 18(1):98
pubmed: 30409150