Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The role of multiparametric ultrasound in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer

  • Topic Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Transrectal ultrasound (US) imaging is paramount to the successful completion of prostate biopsies. Certain US features have been associated with prostate cancer (PCa), but their utility remains controversial. We explored the role of multiparametric US (mpUS) in the detection of clinically significant PCa.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study to contrast the findings of prostate MRI and mpUS. Patients who underwent MRI, US and biopsy between 2015 and 2021 were included. Biopsies were performed using a systematic approach (12 cores), as well as with MRI (4 cores/lesion) and US (1 core/lesion) targeting. The US features analyzed consisted of: calcifications, hypoechoic lesions and power or color Doppler positivity. Gleason 3 + 4 or higher was used as to define true positives. Measures of diagnostic accuracy were calculated for the different imaging modalities.

Results

The final cohort included 74 patients, of which 24 (32.4%) had clinically significant PCa. The concordance between MRI and US was 63.5%. Seven individuals with discordant results had clinically significant PCa. MRI alone was more sensitive (87.5% vs 75%) but less specific (28% vs 32%) than US alone. An all-inclusive approach considering any suspicious US or MRI finding had a sensitivity of 95.8%. A more restrictive approach, targeting lesions noted in both US and MRI, yielded the highest specificity (50.0%) and accuracy (55.4%).

Conclusion

Biopsy targeting based on US findings can provide additional diagnostic information that may increase sensitivity or specificity. Additional research into this topic could open the door to a more personalized approach to prostate biopsy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Carroll PR, Parsons JK, Andriole G, Bahnson RR, Barocas DA, Castle EP et al (2015) NCCN clinical practice guidelines prostate cancer early detection, version 2.2015. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 3(12):1534–1561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Verma S, Rosenkrantz AB, Choyke P, Eberhardt SC, Eggener SE, Gaitonde K et al (2017) Commentary regarding a recent collaborative consensus statement addressing prostate MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative prostate biopsy. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42(2):346–349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dähnert WF, Hamper UM, Eggleston JC, Walsh PC, Sanders RC (1986) Prostatic evaluation by transrectal sonography with histopathologic correlation: the echopenic appearance of early carcinoma. Radiology 158(1):97–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gosselaar C, Roobol MJ, Roemeling S, Wolters T, van Leenders GJLH, Schröder FH (2008) The value of an additional hypoechoic lesion-directed biopsy core for detecting prostate cancer. BJU Int 101(6):685–690

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nelson ED, Slotoroff CB, Gomella LG, Halpern EJ (2007) Targeted biopsy of the prostate: the impact of color Doppler imaging and elastography on prostate cancer detection and Gleason score. Urology 70(6):1136–1140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ezquer A, Ortega Hrescak MC, Sanagua C, Roggia-Rebullida P, López R, Cenice F et al (2015) Transrectal Doppler ultrasound during prostate biopsy: clinical utility and limitations. Actas Urol Esp 39(1):13–19

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, Claudon M, Roy C, Mège-Lechevallier F et al (2019) Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 20(1):100–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG (2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42(2):377–381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, Elliott V, Fernandez M, O’Neal L et al (2019) The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform 95:103208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Feleppa EJ, Mamou J, Porter CR, Machi J (2011) Quantitative ultrasound in cancer imaging. Semin Oncol 38(1):136–150

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee HY, Lee HJ, Byun S-S, Lee SE, Hong SK, Kim SH (2009) Classification of focal prostatic lesions on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and the accuracy of TRUS to diagnose prostate cancer. Korean J Radiol 10(3):244–251

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Bjurlin MA, Carroll PR, Eggener S, Fulgham PF, Margolis DJ, Pinto PA et al (2020) Update of the standard operating procedure on the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis, staging and management of prostate cancer. J Urol 203(4):706–712

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dell’Oglio P, Stabile A, Soligo M, Brembilla G, Esposito A, Gandaglia G et al (2020) There is no way to avoid systematic prostate biopsies in addition to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies. Eur Urol Oncol 3:112–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2019.03.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B, Hendriks R, Padhani AR, Hoogenboom M et al (2019) Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol 75(4):570–578

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE, Lebastchi AH, Mehralivand S, Gomella PT et al (2020) MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 382(10):917–928

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Shakir NA, Siddiqui MM, George AK, Kongnyuy M, Ho R, Fascelli M et al (2017) Should hypoechoic lesions on transrectal ultrasound be sampled during magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsy? Urology 105:113–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Garcia-Reyes K, Nguyen HG, Zagoria RJ, Shinohara K, Carroll PR, Behr SC et al (2018) Impact of lesion visibility on transrectal ultrasound on the prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score 3 + 4 or greater) with transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy. J Urol 199(3):699–705

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rouvière O, Melodelima C, Hoang Dinh A, Bratan F, Pagnoux G, Sanzalone T et al (2017) Stiffness of benign and malignant prostate tissue measured by shear-wave elastography: a preliminary study. Eur Radiol 27(5):1858–1866

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mannaerts CK, Engelbrecht MRW, Postema AW, van Kollenburg RAA, Hoeks CMA, Savci-Heijink CD et al (2020) Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve men: direct comparison of systematic biopsy, multiparametric MRI- and contrast-ultrasound-dispersion imaging-targeted biopsy. BJU Int 126(4):481–493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Loch T, Leuschner I, Genberg C, Weichert-Jacobsen K, Küppers F, Yfantis E et al (1999) Artificial neural network analysis (ANNA) of prostatic transrectal ultrasound. Prostate 39(3):198–204

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tokas T, Grabski B, Paul U, Bäurle L, Loch T (2018) A 12-year follow-up of ANNA/C-TRUS image-targeted biopsies in patients suspicious for prostate cancer. World J Urol 36(5):699–704

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wildeboer RR, Mannaerts CK, van Sloun RJG, Budäus L, Tilki D, Wijkstra H et al (2020) Automated multiparametric localization of prostate cancer based on B-mode, shear-wave elastography, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound radiomics. Eur Radiol 30(2):806–815

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgments of people, grants, funds, etc. or “Not applicable”.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Nathan Jung and Renzo G. Di Natale have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urology and Renal Transplantation Service, Department of Surgery, Virginia Mason Medical Center, 1100 Ninth Ave., Seattle, WA, 98101, USA

    Nathan Jung, Renzo G. DiNatale, Hannah Koenig, On Ho & Christopher Porter

  2. Urology, SLU Care Urology, 6400 Clayton Rd, Clayton, MO, 63177, USA

    Jason Frankel

  3. Hematology and Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Virginia Mason Medical Center, 1100 Ninth Ave., Seattle, WA, 98101, USA

    John Paul Flores

Authors
  1. Nathan Jung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Renzo G. DiNatale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jason Frankel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hannah Koenig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. On Ho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. John Paul Flores
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Christopher Porter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

NJ: Manuscript writing, manuscript editing, data collection, data management. JF: Manuscript editing. HK: Data analysis, manuscript editing. RGDN: data analysis, manuscript writing, manuscript editing. OH: Manuscript editing, supervision. JPF: Manuscript editing. CP: Manuscript editing, project conception, supervision, project management, data collection.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Porter.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Not applicable.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jung, N., DiNatale, R.G., Frankel, J. et al. The role of multiparametric ultrasound in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. World J Urol 41, 663–671 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04122-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04122-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation