European Radiology

, Volume 17, Issue 9, pp 2278–2285 | Cite as

Comparison of sonoelastography guided biopsy with systematic biopsy: impact on prostate cancer detection

  • Leo PallweinEmail author
  • Michael Mitterberger
  • Peter Struve
  • Wolfgang Horninger
  • Friedrich Aigner
  • Georg Bartsch
  • Johann Gradl
  • Matthias Schurich
  • Florian Pedross
  • Ferdinand Frauscher


A prospective study was performed to determine the value of sonoelastography (SE) targeted biopsy for prostate cancer (PCa) detection. A series of 230 male screening volunteers was examined. Two independent examiners evaluated each subject. One single investigator performed ≤5 SE targeted biopsies into suspicious regions in the peripheral zone only. The stiffness of the lesion was displayed by SE and color-coded from red (soft) to blue (hard). Hard lesions were considered as malignant and targeted by biopsy. Subsequently, another examiner performed ten systematic biopsies. Cancer detection rates of the two techniques were compared. Cancer was detected in 81 of the 230 patients (35%), including 68 (30%) by SE targeted biopsy and in 58 (25%) by systematic biopsy. Cancer was detected by targeted biopsy alone in 23 patients (10%) and by systematic biopsy alone in 13 patients (6%). The detection rate for SE targeted biopsy cores (12.7% or 135 of 1,109 cores) was significantly better than for systematic biopsy cores (5.6% or 130 of 2,300 cores, P < 0.001). SE targeted biopsy in a patient with cancer was 2.9-fold more likely to detect PCa than systematic biopsy. SE targeted biopsy detected more cases of PCa than systematic biopsy, with fewer than half the number of biopsy cores in this prostate-specific antigen screening population.


Prostate Ultrasound Sonoelastography 


  1. 1.
    Halpern EJ, Frauscher F, Rosenberg M, Gomella LG (2002) Directed biopsy during contrast-enhanced sonography of the prostate. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178:915–919PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Frauscher F, Klauser A, Halpern EJ, Horninger W, Bartsch G (2001) Detection of prostate cancer with a microbubble ultrasound contrast agent. Lancet 357:1849–1850PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Krouskop TA, Wheeler TM, Kallel F, Garra BS, Hall T (1998) Elastic moduli of breast and prostate tissues under compression. Ultrason Imaging 20:260–274PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sedelaar JP, Vijverberg PL, De Reijke TM et al (2001) Transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: state of the art and perspectives. Eur Urol 40:275–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ophir J, Cespedes I, Ponnekanti H, Yazdi Y, Li X (1991) Elastography: a quantitative method for imaging the elasticity of biological tissues. Ultrason Imaging 13:111–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ophir J, Miller RK, Ponnekanti H, Cespedes I, Whittaker AD (1994) Elastography of beef muscle. Meat Sci 36:239–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pesavento A, Perry C, Krueger M, Ermert H (1999) A time efficient and accurate strain estimation concept for ultrasonic elastography using interactive phase zero estimation. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelect Freq Control 46:1057–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Konig K, Scheipers U, Pesavento A, Lorenz A, Ermert H, Senge T (2005) Initial experiences with real-time elastography guided biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 174:115–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cochlin DL, Ganatra RH, Griffiths DF (2002) Elastography in the detection of prostatic cancer. Clin Radiol 57:1014–1020PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frauscher F, Klauser A, Volgger H et al (2002) Comparison of contrast enhanced color Doppler targeted biopsy with conventional systematic biopsy: impact on prostate cancer detection. J Urol 167:1648–1652PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frey H (2003) Realtime elastography. A new ultrasound procedure for the reconstruction of tissue elasticity. Radiologe 43:850–855PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shiina T, Doyley MM, Bamber JC (1996) Strain imaging using combined RF and envelope autocorrelation processing. Proc IEEE Ultrason Symp 4:1331–1336Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Skovoroda AR, Agliamov SR (1995) Reconstruction of elastic properties of soft biological tissues exposed to low frequency disruption. Biofizika 40:1329–1334PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Konofagou EE, Ophir J, Kallel F, Varghese T (1997) Elastographic dynamic range expansion using variable applied strains. Ultrason Imaging 19:145–166PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pelzer AE, Bektic J, Berger AP et al (2005) Are transition zone biopsies still necessary to improve prostate cancer detection? Results from the tyrol screening project. Eur Urol 48:916–921PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dhingsa R, Qayyum A, Coakley FV et al (2004) Prostate cancer localization with endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging: effect of clinical data on reader accuracy. Radiology 230:215–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Halpern EJ, Strup SE (2000) Using gray-scale and color and power Doppler sonography to detect prostatic cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:623–627PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen ME, Troncoso P, Johnston DA, Tang K, Babaian RJ (1997) Optimization of prostate biopsy strategy using computer based analysis. J Urol 158:2168–2175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Motulsky H (1995) Intuitive Biostatistics. Oxford University Press, New York, p 129Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Norberg M, Egevad L, Holmberg L, Sparen P, Norlen BJ, Busch C (1997) The sextant protocol for ultrasound-guided core biopsies of the prostate underestimates the presence of cancer. Urology 50:562–566PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jones JS, Patel A, Schoenfield L, Rabets JC, Zippe CD, Magi-Galluzzi C (2006) Saturation technique does not improve cancer detection as an initial prostate biopsy strategy. J Urol 175:485–488PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Naughton CK, Miller DC, Mager DE, Ornstein DK, Catalona WJ (2000) A prospective randomized trial comparing 6 versus 12 prostate biopsy cores: impact on cancer detection. J Urol 164:388–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fleshner NE, O’Sullivan M, Premdass C, Fair WR (1999) Clinical significance of small (less than 0.2 cm3) hypoechoic lesions in men with normal digital rectal examinations and prostate specific antigen levels less than 10 ng/mL. Urology 53:356–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Heijmink SWTPJ, van Moerkerk H, Kiemeney LALM, Witjes JA, Frauscher F, Barentsz JO (2006) A comparison of the diagnostic performance of systematic versus ultrasound-guided biopsies of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 16:927–938PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Horninger W, Reissigl A, Fink K et al (1998) Results of a prospective randomized study comparing the prostate cancer detection rates in PSA screening volunteers undergoing 10 vs. 14 transrectal ultrasound guided biopsies. J Urol 159(Suppl):180, (abstract 690)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ermert H (2002) The Ruhr Center of Competence for Medical Engineering (Kompetenzzentrum Medizintechnik Ruhr KMR, Bochum). Biomed Tech (Berl) 47(Suppl 1, Pt 2):886–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lyshchik A, Higashi T, Asato R et al (2005) Thyroid gland tumor diagnosis at US elastography. Radiology 237:202–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Itoh A, Ueno E, Tohno E et al (2006) Breast disease: clinical application of US elastography for diagnosis. Radiology 239:341–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sperandeo G, Sperandeo M, Morcaldi M, Caturelli E, Dimitri L, Camagna A (2003) Transrectal ultrasonography for the early diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a new maneuver designed to improve the differentiation of malignant and benign lesions. J Urol 169:607–610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leo Pallwein
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael Mitterberger
    • 2
  • Peter Struve
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Horninger
    • 2
  • Friedrich Aigner
    • 1
  • Georg Bartsch
    • 2
  • Johann Gradl
    • 1
  • Matthias Schurich
    • 1
  • Florian Pedross
    • 3
  • Ferdinand Frauscher
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology 2/UroradiologyMedical University InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria
  2. 2.Department of UrologyMedical University InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria
  3. 3.Department of Medical Statistics, Information and Health EconomicsMedical Universit InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations