Sonohistology – Ultrasonic tissue characterization for prostate cancer diagnostics

Scheipers, U.; König, Katharina; Sommerfeld, H.-J.; Garcia-Schurmann, M.; Senge, Theodor; Ermert, H.

doi:10.3233/cbm-2008-44-506

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 103 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sensitivities for the detection of prostate cancer range between 74% and 90% in small studies [14–17]. Other imaging techniques under development in prostate cancer are histoscanning, a novel experimental US‐based technology that uses computer‐aided analysis to quantify tissue disorganisation induced by malignant processes [18], and sonohistology, which is based on analysis of the spectral content of radiofrequency ultrasonic echo data combined with evaluations of textural, contextual, morphological and clinical features in a multiparameter approach [19].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a Consensus Panel

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Focal therapy techniques are emerging in prostate cancer treatment. However, several key questions about patient selection, treatment and monitoring still have to be addressed. The concept of focal therapy is barely discussed in current urological guidelines. In the present manuscript, we report the results of a consensus meeting focused on ultrasonography, the most common used urological imaging method, in relation to focal therapy of prostate cancer. To establish a consensus on the utility of ultrasonography (US) to select patients for focal therapy. Topics were the current status of US to determine focality of prostate cancer, to monitor and assess outcome of focal therapy and the diagnostic advantages of new US methods. In addition, the biopsy techniques required to identify focal lesions were discussed. Urological surgeons, radiation oncologists, radiologists, and basic researchers from Europe and North America participated in a consensus meeting on the use of transrectal US (TRUS) in focal therapy of prostate cancer. The consensus process was face‐to‐face and specific clinical issues were raised and discussed with agreement sought when possible. TRUS is commonly used and essential for diagnosing men with prostate cancer. It is particularly useful for targeting specific anatomical regions or visible lesions. However, it has several limitations and there is a need for improvement. Newer visualisation techniques, e.g. colour Doppler US, contrast‐enhanced US and elastography, are being developed but currently there is no US technique that can accurately characterise a cancer suitable for focal therapy. Systematic biopsy is the only known procedure that allows the identification of prostate cancers suitable for focal therapy. Scarce data exist about the role of US for monitoring patients during or after ablative therapy. Consensus was reached on all key aspects of the meeting. US cannot reliably identify focal prostate cancer. New US methods show promising results in identifying prostate cancer focality. Currently selecting appropriate candidates for focal therapy should be performed using dedicated protocols and biopsy schemes.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a Consensus Panel

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Combined features of extraction from spectrum ana lysis of radiofrequency signals and image-based texture features have been reported to provide more effective tissue classification [61,62]. Based on ana lysis of the spectral content of radiofrequency ultrasonic echo data in combination with evaluation of textural, contextual, morphological and clinical features in a multiparameter approach, Scheipers et al evaluated ultrasound data originating from 100 patients using histological specimens obtained after prostatectomy as the gold standard, demonstrating AUCs of 0.86 ± 0.01 for hypoechoic and hyperechoic tumors and of 0.84 ± 0.02 for isoechoic tumors, respectively [63].…”

Section: Computer-aided Diagnosis Of Trusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of precise and multimodal MRI and TRUS in detection and management of early prostate cancer

Ukimura¹

2010

Expert Review of Medical Devices

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The combination of T2-weighted MRI with functional MRI, including contrast-enhanced MRI, diffusion-weighted imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy, has been recognized as the most promising diagnostic modality for the detection and staging of localized prostate cancer. In spite of the relatively low predictive value of the transrectal ultrasonography (US) image alone, transrectal US-guided prostate biopsy is currently the most clinically used, gold standard technique to confirm pathological prostate cancer. A possible way of improving the precision of prostate biopsy is to use computer-aided analysis, the fusion of the US image with MRI, or by introducing contrast-enhanced US, elastography and/or 3D US to be coupled with computer-assistance or robotic needle placement. Computer-aided surgical navigation systems with image-fusion or image-overlaying capability, integrated with real-time organ tracking systems and/or robotic systems for feedback on the 3D spatial positions of the surgical targets and instruments, can provide attractive opportunities to improve the digitally-coordinated precision of minimally invasive urology, along with predictive ability to guide toward ideal surgical outcomes.

show abstract

“…High accuracies have been demonstrated in some studies, but the full potential has not been elucidated yet [20]. Computerized methods for identifying cancerous tissue in images obtained by ultrasound and MRI are being investigated intensively [11,20,123,[157][158][159][160][161]. For example, Mohamed et al [57] reached an accuracy of 93.75% for automatic detection of PCa in greyscale ultrasound images.…”

Section: Computer-aided Detection and Diagnosismentioning

confidence: 99%

Technologies for localization and diagnosis of prostate cancer

Candefjord¹,

Ramser²,

Lindahl³

2009

Journal of Medical Engineering & Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The gold standard for detecting prostate cancer (PCa), systematic biopsy, lacks sensitivity as well as grading accuracy. PSA screening leads to over-treatment of many men, and it is unclear whether screening reduces PCa mortality. This review provides an understanding of the difficulties of localizing and diagnosing PCa. It summarizes recent developments of ultrasound (including elastography) and MRI, and discusses some alternative experimental techniques, such as resonance sensor technology and vibrational spectroscopy. A comparison between the different methods is presented. It is concluded that new ultrasound techniques are promising for targeted biopsy procedures, in order to detect more clinically significant cancers while reducing the number of cores. MRI advances are very promising, but MRI remains expensive and MR-guided biopsy is complex. Resonance sensor technology and vibrational spectroscopy have shown promising results in vitro. There is a need for large prospective multicentre trials that unambiguously prove the clinical benefits of these new techniques.

show abstract

Sonohistology – Ultrasonic tissue characterization for prostate cancer diagnostics

Cited by 8 publications

References 103 publications

Role of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a Consensus Panel

Role of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a Consensus Panel

Evolution of precise and multimodal MRI and TRUS in detection and management of early prostate cancer

Technologies for localization and diagnosis of prostate cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About