Advertisement

Current Urology Reports

, 18:97 | Cite as

HistoScanningTM to Detect and Characterize Prostate Cancer—a Review of Existing Literature

  • James S. WysockEmail author
  • Alex Xu
  • Clement Orczyk
  • Samir S. Taneja
New Imaging Techniques (S Rais-Bahrami and A George, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on New Imaging Techniques

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The widely acknowledged limitations of the standard prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostic paradigm have provided an impetus to explore novel imaging modalities to diagnose, localize, and risk stratify PCa. As the body of literature focused on HistoScanning™(HS) grows, there is need for a comprehensive review of the clinical efficacy of this technology.

Recent Findings

Eighteen original, English language articles were found to adequately study the use of HistoScanning™ for prostate cancer diagnosis in the clinical setting. The articles were found by conducting a bibliographic search of PubMed in April 2017 in addition to utilizing references. The studies are divided into four groups based on study design. Study methods and quantitative data are summarized for each of the relevant articles. The results are synthesized to evaluate the utility of HistoScanning™ for the purpose of diagnosing PCa.

Summary

Despite the promise of early pilot studies, there is a lack of consistent results across a number of further investigations of HistoScanning™. This becomes increasingly evident as study size increases. As various other modern diagnostic modalities continue to develop, the future of HistoScanning™, both alone and in conjunction with these technologies, remains unclear.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Imaging Detection Screening Biopsy Magnetic resonance imaging 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

James S. Wysock reports consultant fees from Tolmar Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Alex Xu and Samir S. Taneja each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Clement Orczyk reports a grant from the European Association of Urology and a sub investigator for TROD medical.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of Particular Interest, Published Recently, Have Been Highlighted as: • of Importance

  1. 1.
    Bjurlin MA, Wysock JS, Taneja SS. Optimization of prostate biopsy: review of technique and complications. Urol Clin North Am. 2014;41(2):299–313.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hodge KK, et al. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol. 1989;142(1):71–4. discussion 74-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ukimura O, et al. Contemporary role of systematic prostate biopsies: indications, techniques, and implications for patient care. Eur Urol. 2013;63(2):214–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scattoni V, et al. Extended and saturation prostatic biopsy in the diagnosis and characterisation of prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol. 2007;52(5):1309–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schroder FH, et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European randomised study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet. 2014;384(9959):2027–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dickinson L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol. 2011;59(4):477–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bjurlin MA, et al. Optimization of prostate biopsy: the role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection, localization and risk assessment. J Urol. 2014;192(3):648–58.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bjurlin MA, et al. Multiparametric MRI and targeted prostate biopsy: improvements in cancer detection, localization, and risk assessment. Cent European J Urol. 2016;69(1):9–18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ahmed HU, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389(10071):815–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greer MD, et al. Accuracy and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: a multireader study. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;45(2):579–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pummer K, et al. Innovations in diagnostic imaging of localized prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2014;32(4):881–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pavlovich CP, et al. High-resolution transrectal ultrasound: pilot study of a novel technique for imaging clinically localized prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2014;32(1):34 e27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moore CM, et al. Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an international working group. Eur Urol. 2013;64(4):544–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hamann M, Junemann K. How to make TRUS better: HistoScanning-guided biopsies for identification of cancer within the prostate. , in focal therapy of prostate cancer: an emerging strategy for minimally invasive, staged treatment. 2015, Springer International Publishing;: Switzerland. p. 51–58.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Coninck V, Braeckman J, Michielsen D. Prostate HistoScanning: a screening tool for prostate cancer? Int J Urol. 2013;20(12):1184–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Braeckman J, et al. Computer-aided ultrasonography (HistoScanning): a novel technology for locating and characterizing prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2008;101(3):293–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schiffmann J, et al. Controversial evidence for the use of HistoScanning in the detection of prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2015;33(12):1993–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aigner F, Frauscher F. RE: computer-aided ultrasonography (HistoScanning): a novel technology for locating and characterizing prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2009;103(1):115. author reply 115-6 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Epstein JI, et al. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA. 1994;271(5):368–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stamey TA, et al. Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer. 1993;71(3 Suppl):933–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    • Braeckman J, et al. The accuracy of transrectal ultrasonography supplemented with computer-aided ultrasonography for detecting small prostate cancers. BJU Int. 2008;102(11):1560–5. Initial validation study reporting a sensititivity of 100% for tumors with volume ≥ 0.5 mL. The authors reported a PPV and a NPV of 80% and 100% for tumors ≥ 0.5 mL on these initial study patients and also reported strong correlation between HS tumor volume and RP histologic tumor volume (HTV) (r = 0.99, p < 0.001) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Simmons LA, et al. Detection, localisation and characterisation of prostate cancer by prostate HistoScanning(). BJU Int. 2012;110(1):28–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Javed S. Does prostate HistoScanning accurately identify prostate cancer, measure tumor volume and asess pathological stage prior to radical prostatectomy? Journal of Clinical Urology. 2013;6(6):395–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    • Porres D, et al. Sextant-specific analysis of detection and tumor volume by HistoScanning. Urol Int. 2016;96(2):194–201. Largest study evaluating HS to detect PCa at RP. This study reported poor correlation between HS tumor volume and HTV (correlation coefficient of 0.064—poor agreement). The sensitivity and specificity for either threshold ranged widely and did not agree with the initial study results CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Macek P, et al. Prostate histoscanning in clinically localized biopsy proven prostate cancer: an accuracy study. J Endourol. 2014;28(3):371–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Orczyk C, et al. A prospective comparative analysis of the accuracy of HistoScanning and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the localization of prostate cancer among men undergoing radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2016;34(1):3 e1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Javed S, et al. Does prostate HistoScanning play a role in detecting prostate cancer in routine clinical practice? Results from three independent studies. BJU Int. 2014;114(4):541–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hamann MF, et al. Computer-aided transrectal ultrasound: does prostate HistoScanning improve detection performance of prostate cancer in repeat biopsies? BMC Urol. 2015;15:76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schiffmann J, et al. Comparison of prostate cancer volume measured by HistoScanning and final histopathological results. World J Urol. 2014;32(4):939–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Salomon G, et al. Accuracy of HistoScanning for the prediction of a negative surgical margin in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2013;111(5):60–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schiffmann J, et al. Histoscanning has low sensitivity and specificity for seminal vesicle invasion. Urology. 2014;84(5):1168–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schlomm T, et al. Neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE) increases nerve-sparing frequency and reduces positive surgical margins in open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience after 11,069 consecutive patients. Eur Urol. 2012;62(2):333–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schiffmann J, et al. True targeting-derived prostate biopsy: HistoScanning remained inadequate despite advanced technical efforts. World J Urol. 2016;34(4):495–500.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nunez-Mora C, et al. Utility of Histoscanning prior to prostate biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma. Actas Urol Esp. 2013;37(6):342–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hamann MF, et al. Computer-aided (HistoScanning) biopsies versus conventional transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: do targeted biopsy schemes improve the cancer detection rate? Urology. 2013;81(2):370–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    • Schiffmann J, et al. Does HistoScanning predict positive results in prostate biopsy? A retrospective analysis of 1,188 sextants of the prostate. World J Urol. 2014;32(4):925–30. Largest study evaluating HS prediction for prostate biopsy. in 198 men. Reported NPV, {PV ranging from28.8 to 33.1% and 50.6 to 79.7%, respectivelyl. Authors also reported a false positive rate for HS of 73.1% and an AUC of 0.58 for predicting cancer on biopsy CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sivaraman A, et al. Prostate histoscanning true targeting guided prostate biopsy: initial clinical experience. World J Urol. 2015;33(10):1475–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Weaver RP, Noble MJ, Weigel JW. Correlation of ultrasound guided and digitally directed transrectal biopsies of palpable prostatic abnormalities. J Urol. 1991;145(3):516–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Heijmink SW, et al. A comparison of the diagnostic performance of systematic versus ultrasound-guided biopsies of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(4):927–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Onur R, et al. Contemporary impact of transrectal ultrasound lesions for prostate cancer detection. J Urol. 2004;172(2):512–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dahnert WF, et al. Prostatic evaluation by transrectal sonography with histopathologic correlation: the echopenic appearance of early carcinoma. Radiology. 1986;158(1):97–102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mitterberger MJ, et al. Comparative efficiency of contrast-enhanced colour Doppler ultrasound targeted versus systematic biopsy for prostate cancer detection. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(12):2791–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Taverna G, et al. Colour Doppler and microbubble contrast agent ultrasonography do not improve cancer detection rate in transrectal systematic prostate biopsy sampling. BJU Int. 2011;108(11):1723–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Xie SW, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography with contrast-tuned imaging technology for the detection of prostate cancer: comparison with conventional ultrasonography. BJU Int. 2012;109(11):1620–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Brock M, et al. Comparison of real-time elastography with grey-scale ultrasonography for detection of organ-confined prostate cancer and extra capsular extension: a prospective analysis using whole mount sections after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2011;108(8 Pt 2):E217–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lee F, et al. Prostate cancer: transrectal ultrasound and pathology comparison. A preliminary study of outer gland (peripheral and central zones) and inner gland (transition zone) cancer. Cancer. 1991;67(4 Suppl):1132–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Merrick GS, et al. Prostate cancer distribution in patients diagnosed by transperineal template-guided saturation biopsy. Eur Urol. 2007;52(3):715–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bott SR, et al. Extensive transperineal template biopsies of prostate: modified technique and results. Urology. 2006;68(5):1037–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lemaitre G, et al. Computer-aided detection and diagnosis for prostate cancer based on mono and multi-parametric MRI: a review. Comput Biol Med. 2015;60:8–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Simmons LA, et al. The PICTURE study—prostate imaging (multi-parametric MRI and prostate HistoScanning) compared to transperineal ultrasound guided biopsy for significant prostate cancer risk evaluation. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;37(1):69–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • James S. Wysock
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alex Xu
    • 2
  • Clement Orczyk
    • 3
    • 4
  • Samir S. Taneja
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of UrologyNew York University Langone Medical CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.New York University School of MedicineNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of UrologyUniversity College London HospitalLondonUK
  4. 4.Division of Surgery and Interventional SciencesUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations