Transrectal Ultrasound of the Prostate: Innovations and Future Applications

Aarnink, R.G.; Beerlage, Harrie P.; Rosette, Jean J.M.C.H. de la; Debruyne, F.M.J.; Wijkstra, Hessel

doi:10.1097/00005392-199805000-00045

Cited by 81 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, our [1,[17][18][19][20][21]. Second, the efficacy of CE sonography might be underestimated because of the limitations of our study, wherein the histologic results of biopsy were considered to be the reference standard and histologic examination of the entire prostate gland was not performed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Contrast-Enhanced Sonography for Prostate Cancer Detection in Patients with Indeterminate Clinical Findings

Kim

et al. 2006

American Journal of Roentgenology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

G e n i t o u r i n a r y I m a g i n g • O r i g i n a l R e s e a r c h Contrast-EnhancedOBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the usefulness of contrast-enhanced sonography for prostate cancer detection in patients with an indeterminate prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (4-10 ng/mL) and negative findings on digital rectal examination.SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Forty-eight patients underwent gray-scale, color Doppler, and contrast-enhanced sonography examinations and then sonographically guided biopsy. Contrast-enhanced sonography was performed using Levovist at a mechanical index of 1.1-1.4. The performances of the three methods for cancer detection were compared according to biopsy site and patient.RESULTS. Sensitivity by biopsy site was greater on contrast-enhanced sonography (68%) than on gray-scale (39%) and color Doppler (41%) sonography (p ≤ 0.05), whereas the specificity and overall accuracy by biopsy site (82% and 77% for gray-scale sonography, 84% and 79% for color Doppler sonography, and 83% and 81% for contrast-enhanced sonography, respectively) were not different for the three methods (p > 0.05). The concordance score for sonography and biopsy results by patient was not different for gray-scale (6.4 ± 1.8), color Doppler (6.3 ± 0.6), and contrast-enhanced sonography (6.5 ± 0.7) (p = 0.281).CONCLUSION. Contrast-enhanced sonography could improve only the sensitivity for cancer detection in analysis by biopsy site but did not improve the overall performance of sonography in patients with an indeterminate PSA level and negative digital rectal examination. rostate cancer is a common malignant neoplasm in men. Its incidence has been increasing because of improvements in diagnostic testing, increasing life expectancy, and the presence of environmental carcinogens [1,2]. Although sonography has wisely been used for evaluating the prostate, many reports have shown the limitations of sonography for cancer detection based on its unsatisfactory sensitivity and variable accuracy [3][4][5][6][7][8].Over the past few years, microbubble contrast-enhanced sonography has been introduced as a promising tool that can improve prostate cancer detection. Halpern et al. [1], in an early large study, showed significant improvement of the sensitivity from 38% on gray-scale and color or power Doppler sonography to 65% with contrast-enhanced (CE) sonography. Thereafter, several studies also reported an increased sensitivity of up to 86% [9][10][11][12]. However, the actual merit of sonographic contrast material may be in question because the performance of CE sonography varied in those studies. The variable degree of cancer risk in the study populations of previous studies may be largely responsible for the variable results of those studies; patients with a high PSA level and positive digital rectal examination may have a greater chance of having positive sonographic findings than those with an indeterminate risk of prostate cancer [9][10][11][12][13][14]. Therefore, if CE sonography were shown to have improved ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Contrast-Enhanced Sonography for Prostate Cancer Detection in Patients with Indeterminate Clinical Findings

Kim

et al. 2006

American Journal of Roentgenology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ultrasound imaging is the most common imaging technology used in urologic clinics because it is a fast, portable &cost-effective medical imaging technology offering interactive visualization of the underlying anatomic structure in real time & has the ability to show dynamic structure within the body. For this reason, TRUS is commonly used for diagnosis of prostates, detection & staging of prostate cancer, and real time image guidance of therapeutic procedures [2,3].However, achieving an accurate, robust & fast performance in automatic boundary identification still is a challenging task owing to the relatively poor image quality of ultra sonograms, speckle noise & shadowing [4]. For this reason, manual contouring is currently the only robust, reliable segmentation procedure available for the TRUS of the prostate.…”

Section: A Prostate Diseasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prostate Boundary Detection from Ultrasound Images using Ant Colony Optimization

Wasson¹,

Singh²

2011

IJORCS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…3,4 However, these techniques all have limited ability to resolve malignant tissue from benign enlarged prostate tissue. 5,6 Physicians typically overcome their limited sensitivity and specificity by using combinations of these methods to perform more accurate diagnoses. 7,8 Although the entire prostate anatomy can be easily visualized by traditional TRUS imaging, malignant lesions are difficult to identify using TRUS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optoacoustic imaging of the prostate: development toward image-guided biopsy

Yaseen¹,

Ermilov²,

Brecht³

et al. 2010

J. Biomed. Opt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.Optoacoustic ͑OA͒ tomography has demonstrated utility in identifying blood-rich malignancies in breast tissue. We describe the development and characterization of a laser OA imaging system for the prostate ͑LOIS-P͒. The system consists of a fiber-coupled Q-switched laser operating at 757 nm, a commercial 128-channel ultrasonic probe, a digital signal processor, and software that uses the filtered radial back-projection algorithm for image reconstruction. The system is used to reconstruct OA images of a blood-rich lesion induced in vivo in a canine prostate. OA images obtained in vivo are compared to images acquired using ultrasound, the current gold standard for guiding biopsy of the prostate. Although key structural features such as the urethra could be identified with both imaging techniques, a bloody lesion representing a highly vascularized tumor could only be clearly identified in OA images. The advantages and limitations of both forward and backward illumination modes are also evaluated by collecting OA images of phantoms simulating blood vessels within tissue. System resolution is estimated to be 0.2 mm in the radial direction of the acoustic array. The minimum detectable pressure signal is 1.83 Pa. Our results encourage further development toward a dual-modality OA/ultrasonic system for prostate imaging and image-guided biopsy.

show abstract

Transrectal Ultrasound of the Prostate: Innovations and Future Applications

Cited by 81 publications

References 55 publications

Contrast-Enhanced Sonography for Prostate Cancer Detection in Patients with Indeterminate Clinical Findings

Contrast-Enhanced Sonography for Prostate Cancer Detection in Patients with Indeterminate Clinical Findings

Prostate Boundary Detection from Ultrasound Images using Ant Colony Optimization

Optoacoustic imaging of the prostate: development toward image-guided biopsy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About