Digital rectal examination in a simulated environment using sweeping palpation and mechanical localization

  • Yeongjin Kim
  • Bummo Ahn
  • Youngjin Na
  • Taeyoung Shin
  • Koonho Rha
  • Jung Kim
Article

Abstract

Computerized palpation systems have been studied for the quantitative characterization of prostate properties. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of mechanical tumor localization maps by estimating correlation with pathological maps. A total of 120 indentations were performed on 10 specimens by using a sweeping palpation system in simulated environment conditions. Suspicious tumor lesions from the mechanical localization were compared to those of the pathological maps. The concordance rate between the mechanical localization maps and pathological maps was 81.7% (98/120). The positive predictive value (PPV) and the negative predictive value (NPV) of the proposed localization system were 78.6% (59/75) and 86.7% (39/45), respectively. Based on these data, the suspicious tumor lesions of mechanical localization maps were in close agreement with those from the pathological maps. The findings suggest that the high compatibility and detection rate of prostate tumor could be enhanced if computerized palpation and the conventional diagnosis are used synergistically. This study may contribute to technological progress in overcoming diagnostic limitations, which include many complications from digital rectal examination (DRE) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided needle biopsy.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Mechanical diagnosis Mechanical property map 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ramon, J. and Denis, L. J., “Prostate Cancer: Recent Results in Cancer Research,” Springer, 2007.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Byar, D. P. and Mostofi, F. K., “Carcinoma of the Prostate: Prognostic Evaluation of Certain Pathologic Features in 208 Radical Prostatectomies,” Cancer, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 5–13, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Catalona, W. J., Smith, D. S., Ratliff, T. L., Dodds, K. M., Coplen, D. E., and et al., “Measurement of Prostate-Specific Antigen in Serum as a Screening Test for Prostate Cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 324, No. 17, pp. 1156–1161, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brawer, M. K., Chetner, M. P., Beatie, D. M., Vessella, R. L., and Lange, P. H., “Screening for Prostatic Carcinoma with Prostate Specific Antigen,” Journal of Urology, Vol. 147, No. 3, pp. 841–845, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Partin, A. W., Catalona, W. J., Southwick, P. C., Subong, E. N., Gasior, G. H., and Chan, D. W., “Analysis of Percent Free Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) for Prostate Cancer Detection: Influence of Total PSA, Prostate Volume, and Age,” Urology, Vol. 48, No. 6, pp. 55–61, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Silletti, J. P., Gordon, G. J., Bueno, R., Jakitsch, M., and Loughlin, K. R., “Prostate Biopsy: Past, Present, and Future,” Urology, Vol. 69, No. 3, pp. 413–416, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mettlin, C., Lee, F., Drago, J., and Murphy, G. P., “The American Cancer Society National Prostate Cancer Detection Project. Findings on the Detection of Early Prostate Cancer in 2425 Men,” Cancer, Vol. 67, No. 12, pp. 2949–2958, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bozeman, C. B., Carver, B. S., Caldito, G., Venable, D. D., and Eastham, J. A., “Prostate Cancer in Patients with an Abnormal Digital Rectal Examination and Serum Prostate-Specific Antigen Less than 4.0 ng/mL,” Urology, Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 803–807, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pallwein, L., Mitterberger, M., Struve, P., Horninger, W., Aigner, F., and et al., “Comparison of Sonoelastography Guided Biopsy with Systematic Biopsy: Impact on Prostate Cancer Detection,” European Radiology, Vol. 17, No. 9, pp. 2278–2285, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fujita, K., Landis, P., Mcneil, B. K., and Pavlovich, C. P., “Serial Prostate Biopsies are Associated with an Increased Risk of Erectile Dysfunction in Men with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance,” The Journal of Urology, Vol. 182, No. 6, pp. 2664–2669, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schröder, F. H., Kruger, A. B., Rietbergen, J., Kranse, R., van der Maas, P., and et al., “Evaluation of the Digital Rectal Examination as a Screening Test for Prostate Cancer,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 90, No. 23, pp. 1817–1823, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gosselaar, C., Roobol, M. J., Roemeling, S., van der Kwast, T. H., and Schröder, F. H., “Screening for Prostate Cancer at Low PSA Range: the Impact of Digital Rectal Examination on Tumor Incidence and Tumor Characteristics,” The Prostate, Vol. 67, No. 2, pp. 154–161, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Catalona, W., Richie, J., Ahmann, F., Hudson, M., Scardino, P., and et al., “Comparison of Digital Rectal Examination and Serum Prostate Specific Antigen in the Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: Results of a Multicenter Clinical Trial of 6,630 Men,” The Journal of Urology, Vol. 151, No. 5, pp. 1283–1290, 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smith, D. S., Catalona, W. J., and Herschman, J. D., “Longitudinal Screening for Prostate Cancer with Prostate-Specific Antigen,” JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 276, No. 16, pp. 1309–1315, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lederman, S. J. and Klatzky, R. L., “Sensing and Displaying Spatially Distributed Fingertip Forces in Haptic Interfaces for Teleoperator and Virtual Environment Systems,” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 86–103, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gwilliam, J. C., Pezzementi, Z., Jantho, E., Okamura, A. M., and Hsiao, S., “Human vs. Robotic Tactile Sensing: Detecting Lumps in Soft Tissue,” Proc. of IEEE Haptics Symposium, pp. 21–28, 2010.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smith, D. S. and Catalona, W. J., “Interexaminer Variability of Digital Rectal Examination in Detecting Prostate Cancer,” Urology, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 70–74, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dario, P. and Bergamasco, M., “An Advanced Robot System for Automated Diagnostic Tasks Through Palpation,” Proc. of IEEE Transaction on Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 118–126, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bicchi, A., Canepa, G., De Rossi, D., Iacconi, P., and Scillingo, E. P., “A Sensor-Based Minimally Invasive Surgery Tool for Detecting Tissue Elastic Properties,” Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 1, pp. 884–888, 1996.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scilingo, E., Rossi, D., Bicchi, A., and Iaccone, P., “Haptic Display for Replication of Rheological Behavior of Surgical Tissues: Modelling, Control and Experiments,” Proc. of 6th Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems Symposium, pp. 173–176, 1997.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yan, J., Scott, P. K., and Fearing, R. S., “Inclusion Probing: Signal Detection and Haptic Playback of 2D FEM and Experimental Data,” Proc. of IMECE, Vol. 67, pp. 203–210, 1999.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chonan, S., Jiang, Z. W., Tanaka, M., Kato, T., Kamei, M., and Tanahashi, Y., “Development of a Palpation Sensor for Detection of Prostate Cancer and Hypertrophy (Optimum Structural Design of Sensor),” International Journal of Applied Electromagnetics and Mechanics, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 25–38, 1998.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tanaka, M., Kamei, M., Furubayashi, M., Jiang, Z., Tanahashi, K., and Chonan, S., “Development of a Palpation Sensor for Detecting Prostate Cancer and Hypertrophy (Signal Processing on Clinical Data),” Transactions on the Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 65, pp. 3296–3301, 1999.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tanaka, M., Furubayashi, M., Tanahashi, Y., and Chonan, S., “Development of an Active Palpation Sensor for Detection Prostatic Cancer and Hypertrophy,” Smart Materials and Structures, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 878–884, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liu, H., Noonan, D. P., Althoefer, K., and Seneviratne, L. D., “Rolling Mechanical Imaging: A Novel Approach for Soft Tissue Modelling and Identification during Minimally Invasive Surgery,” Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 845–850, 2008.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liu, H., Noonan, D. P., Challacombe, B. J., Dasgupta, P., Seneviratne, L. D., and Althoefer, K., “Rolling Mechanical Imaging for Tissue Abnormality Localization During Minimally Invasive Surgery,” Proc. of IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 404–414, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sangpradit, K., Liu, H., Seneviratne, L.D., and Althoefer, K., “Tissue Identification using Inverse Finite Element Analysis of Rolling Indentation,” Proc. of IEEE international Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 1250–1255, 2009.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sangpradit, K., Liu, H., Dasgupta, P., Althoefer, K., and Seneviratne, L. D., “Finite-Element Modeling of Soft Tissue Rolling Indentation,” Proc. of IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 58, No. 12, pp. 3319–3327, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ahn, M., Kim, J., Ian, L., Rha, K. H., and Kim, H. J., “Mechanical Property Characterization of Prostate Cancer using a Minimally Motorized Indenter in an Ex vivo Indentation Experiment,” Urology, Vol. 76, No. 4, pp. 1007–1011, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ahn, B., Lorenzo, E. I., Rha, K. H., Kim, H. J., and Kim, J., “Robotic Palpation-Based Mechanical Property Mapping for Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer,” Journal of Endourology, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 851–857, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Goodwin, A. W., John, K. T., and Marceglia, A. H., “Tactile Discrimination of Curvature by Humans using only Cutaneous Information from the Fingerpads,” Experimental Brain Research, Vol. 86, No. 3, pp. 663–672, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Goodwin, A., Macefield, V., and Bisley, J., “Encoding of Object Curvature by Tactile Afferents from Human Fingers,” Journal of Neuro-physiology, Vol. 78, No. 6, pp. 2881–2888, 1997.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Srinivasan, M., Lamotte, R, “Tactual Discrimination of Softness,” Journal of Neuro-physiology, Vol. 73, No. 1, pp. 88–101, 1995.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ahn, B., Kim, Y., Oh, C., and Kim, J., “Robotic Palpation and Mechanical Property Characterization for Abnormal Tissue Localization,” Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, Vol. 50, No. 9, pp. 961–971, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schwenninger, D., Schumann, S., and Guttmann, J., “In vivo Characterization of Mechanical Tissue Properties of Internal Organs using Endoscopic Microscopy and Inverse Finite Element Analysis,” Journal of biomechanics, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 487–493, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Choi, H. W. and Kim, Y. E., “Contribution of Paraspinal Muscle and Passive Elements of the Spine to the Mechanical Stability of the Lumbar Spine,” Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf., Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 993–1002, 2012.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kim, Y., Ahn, B., Lee, J. W., Rha, K. H., and Kim, J., “Local Property Characterization of Prostate Glands using Inhomogeneous Modeling Based on Tumor Volume and Location Analysis,” Medical & Biological engineering & Computing, Vol. 51, No. 1–2, pp. 197–205, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Salvazyan, A., “Computerized Palpation is More Sensitive than Human Finger,” Proc. of the 12th International Symposium on Biomedical Measurements and Instrumentation, pp. 523–524, 1998.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Radmacher, M., “Measuring the Elastic Properties of Biological Samples with the AFM,” Proc. of IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 47–57, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bloom, H. S., Criswell, E. L., Pennypacker, H. S., Catania, A. C., and Adams, C. K., “Major Stimulus Dimensions Determining Detection of Simulated Breast Lesions,” Perception & Psychophysics, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 251–260, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Galosi, A. B., Montironi, R., Fabiani, A., Lacetera, V., Gallé, G., and Muzzonigro, G., “Cystic Lesions of the Prostate Gland: An Ultrasound Classification with Pathological Correlation,” The Journal of Urology, Vol. 181, No. 2, pp. 647–657, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Evans, A., Whelehan, P., Thomson, K., McLean, D., Brauer, K., and et al., “Quantitative Shear Wave Ultrasound Elastography: Initial Experience in Solid Breast Masses,” Breast Cancer Research, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 1–11, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society for Precision Engineering and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yeongjin Kim
    • 1
  • Bummo Ahn
    • 2
  • Youngjin Na
    • 1
  • Taeyoung Shin
    • 3
  • Koonho Rha
    • 3
  • Jung Kim
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringKAISTDaejeonKorea
  2. 2.The Simulation Group, Center for Integration of Medicine and Innovative Technology, Department of RadiologyHarvard Medical SchoolCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.Department of UrologyYonsei University College of Medicine, Urological Science InstituteSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations