Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Computerized transrectal ultrasound of the prostate in a multicenter setup (C-TRUS-MS): detection of cancer after multiple negative systematic random and in primary biopsies

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

Abstract

Objective

To improve prostate cancer diagnostic imaging, a computer-based analysis of the transrectal ultrasound signal (C-TRUS) was developed. Until recently, the C-TRUS existed only as a stand-alone device. Now, C-TRUS was developed into a network-compatible module (C-TRUS-MS). This new technology allows users to transmit C-TRUS images from any internet platform to C-TRUS-MS investigation. After analysis, the cancer-suspicious marked images are then retransmitted via internet. Targeted biopsies can then be taken at the urologists’ office remotely.

Materials and methods

This prospective study investigates whether the rates of prostate cancer detection with C-TRUS-MS “multicenter online” are comparable with those achieved by the stand-alone unit. In addition to patients with a history of multiple systematic random biopsies, a group of patients who had not undergone systematic random biopsies were analyzed.

Results

A total of 1,545 digital images (2–23 per patient, median 6) from 57 urologists were transmitted to the analysis center. After analysis, the color-coded images were sent back electronically and utilized for a maximum of six targeted biopsies. C-TRUS-MS was able to detect prostate cancer in 91 patients.

In addition, we evaluated 75 patients without any previous random biopsies. In this group, C-TRUS-MS was able to detect prostate cancer in 31 out of 75 patients (41%).

Conclusion

The results indicate that C-TRUS-MS “online” achieves similar results as the stand-alone system, independent of the user even with little experience in the method. Furthermore, C-TRUS-MS for the first time is able to detect carcinomas in patients without prior biopsies in a high number by taking only six targeted biopsies.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Potosky AL, Miller BA, Albertson PC, Kramer BS (1995) The role of increasing detection in the rising incidence of prostate cancer. JAMA 273:548–552

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Cooner WH, Mosley BR, Rutherford C, Beard JH, Pond HS, Terry WJ, Igel TC, Kidd DD (1990) Prostate cancer detection in a clinical urological practice by ultrasonography, digital rectal examination and prostate speciWc antigen. J Urol 143:1146–1154

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Oesterling JE (1991) Prostate speciWc antigen: a critical assessment of the most useful tumormarker for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 145:907–923

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Stamey TA, Yang N, Hay AR, McNeal JE, Freiha FS, Redwine E (1987) Prostate-speciWc antigen as a serum marker for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. New Engl J Med 317:909–916

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Jones JS, Oder M, Zippe CD (2002) Saturation biopsy with periprostatic block can be performed in oYce. J Urol 168:2108–2110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fleshner N, Klotz L (2002) Role of “saturation biopsy” in the detection of prostate cancer among diYcult diagnostic cases. Urology 60:93–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chrouser KL, Lieber MM (2004) Extended and saturation needle biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 5:226–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ashley RA, Inman BA, Routh JC, Mynderse LA, Gettman MT, Blute ML (2008) Reassessing the diagnostic yield of saturation biopsy of the prostate. Eur Urol 53(5):976–983

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Simon J, Kuefer R, Bartsch G Jr, Volkmer BG, Hautmann RE, Gottfried HW (2008) Intensifying the saturation biopsy technique for detecting prostate cancer after previous negative biopsies: a step in the wrong direction. BJU Int 103(5):701

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lane BR, Zippe CD, Abouassaly R, Schoenfield L, Magi-Galluzzi C, Jones JS (2008) Saturation technique does not decrease cancer detection during followup after initial prostate biopsy. J Urol 179(5):1746–1750

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Loch T et al (2007) Computerized transrectal ultrasound (C-TRUS) of the prostate: detection of cancer in patients with multiple negative systematic random biopsies. World J Urol 25:375–380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Loch T, Leuschner I, Genberg C, Weichert-Jacobsen K, Küppers F, Yfantis Y, Evans M, Tsarev V, Stöckle M (1999) ArtiWcial neural network analysis (ANNA) of prostatic transrectal ultrasound. Prostate 39:198–204

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Loch T, Leuschner I, Genberg C, Weichert-Jacobsen K, Küppers F, Retz M, Lehmann J, Yfantis Y, Evans M, Tsarev V, Stöckle M (2000) Weiterentwicklung des transrektalen ultraschalls: artifzielle neuronale netzwerk-analyse (ANNA) in der erkennung und stadieneinteilung des prostatakarzinoms. Urologe A 39:341–347

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Loch T, Lehmann J, Wullich B, Loch AC, Klein L, Scheliga A, Thomas M, Stöckle M (2004) Computerized transrectal ultrasound (C-TRUS) of the prostate: detection of cancer in patients with multiple negative systematic random biopsies. J Urol 171(4):477A

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gleason DF (1977) Histologic grading and staging of prostate carcinoma. In: Tannenbaum M (ed) Urologic pathology: the prostate. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, pp 171–187

    Google Scholar 

  16. Flanigan RC, Catalona WJ, Richie JP, Ahmann FR, Hudson MA, Scardino PT, DeKernion JB, RatliV TL, Kavoussi LR, Dalkin BL, Waters WB, MacFarlane MT, Southwick PC (1994) Accuracy of digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasonography in localizing prostate cancer: results of a multicenter clinical trial of 6, 630 men. J Urol 152:1506–1509

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Loch T, Bertermann H, Stöckle M (2000) Technische und anatomische Grundlagen des transrektalen Ultraschalls (TRUS) der Prostata. Urologe B 40:475–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Beemsterboer PM, Kranse R, de Koning HJ, Habbema JD, Schröder FH (1999) Changing role of 3 screening modalities in the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer (Rotterdam). Int J Cancer 84:437–441

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA (1989) Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 142:71–74

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Rome I (2004) The technique of ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. World J Urol 22:353–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Shariat SF, Roehrborn Claus G (2008) Using biopsy to detect prostate cancer. Rev Urol Fall 10(4):262–280

    Google Scholar 

  22. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, authors (2007) Prostate cancer early detection. (Accessed November 1, 2007) http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/prostate_detection.pdf

  23. Cooner WH, Mosley BR, Rutherford C, Beard JH, Pond HS, Terry WJ, Igel TC, Kidd DD (1990) Prostate cancer detection in a clinical urological practice by ultrasonography, digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen. J Urol 143:1146–1154

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Levine MA, Ittman M, Melamed J, Lepor H (1998) Two consecutive sets of transrectal ultrasound guided sextant biopsies of the prostate for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 159:471–475

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Naughton CK, Miller DC, Mager TDE, Ornstein DK, Catalona WJ, Lerner SP, Atkinson N (2000) A prospective randomized trial comparing 6 versus 12 prostate biopsy cores: impact on cancer detection. J Urol 164:388–392

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Gore JL, Shariat SF, Miles BJ et al (2001) Optimal combinations of systematic sextant and laterally directed biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 165:1554–1559

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Ravery V, Goldblatt L, Royer B et al (2000) Extensive biopsy protocol improves the detection rate of prostate cancer. J Urol 164:393–396

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Presti JCJ, Chang JJ, Bhargava V et al (2000) The optimal systematic prostate biopsy scheme should include 8 rather than 6 biopsies: results of a prospective clinical trial. J Urol 163:163–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. de la Taille A, Antiphon P, Salomon L et al (2003) Prospective evaluation of a 21-sample needle biopsy procedure designed to improve the prostate cancer detection rate. Urology 61:1181–1186

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

Prof. Dr. T. Loch was essentially involved in the invention and further development of ANNA/C-TRUS. He is a consultant to Fresenius-Kabi, Germany. All other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Urologie, Diakonissenkrankenhaus Flensburg, Lehrkrankenhaus der Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel des Universitätsklinikums Schleswig–Holstein, Marienhoelzungsweg 2, 24939, Flensburg, Germany

    Bjoern Grabski, Leif Baeurle, Annemie Loch, Bjoern Wefer, Udo Paul & Tillmann Loch

Authors
  1. Bjoern Grabski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leif Baeurle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Annemie Loch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bjoern Wefer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Udo Paul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tillmann Loch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bjoern Grabski.

Additional information

The data of this study were anonymized, due to an agreement of the companies Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GmbH and Deutsches Institut für künstliche Intelligenz (DfkI). Therefore, a designation of the different centers, which submitted the data, is not possible.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grabski, B., Baeurle, L., Loch, A. et al. Computerized transrectal ultrasound of the prostate in a multicenter setup (C-TRUS-MS): detection of cancer after multiple negative systematic random and in primary biopsies. World J Urol 29, 573–579 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0713-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0713-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation