Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prostate cancer diagnostics: innovative imaging in case of multiple negative biopsies

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

Abstract

Objective

According to international guidelines, a primary set of TRUS-guided systematic biopsy should consist of 10–12 tissue samples. If a clinical suspicion of a prostate carcinoma persists, a secondary biopsy session should also involve 10–12 samples. However, if there still is a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer is there a role for innovative imaging guided biopsies?

Materials and methods

The available innovative imaging techniques range from MRI, Doppler techniques with and without contrast agents, a renaissance of elastography to computer-assisted evaluation of TRUS signal information.

Result

All of these methods attempt to make more specific statements on the imaged tissue. Before routine clinical use, a review of the literature is recommended to be able to differentiate between the different methods. Sophisticated modern MRI techniques allow for excellent high-resolution prostate imaging. However, MRI guided biopsies so far are not routine practice and are not recommended in urological guidelines. A literature review reflects differences in stage of development, biopsy performance and clinical validity of the different imaging modalities. Elastography, contrast imaging and C-TRUS/ANNA guided biopsies have been investigated in clinical trails suggesting possible benefits over additional systematic random biopsies alone. Because of the differences in design and clinical maturity of the innovative imaging methods, it is essential to be able to inform the patients about individual evidence-based performance prior to its clinical utilization.

Conclusion

The ideal time for innovative imaging techniques seems to be in patients with multiple series of negative systematic biopsies possibly leading to a more specific PCa detection. However, patients often ask for a qualitative diagnostic approach right from the beginning. This should only be performed after educating the patient on the experimental and ‘non-guideline-conform’ character of such a proceeding.

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

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 specific antigen. J Urol 143:1146–1154

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Oesterling JE (1991) Prostate specific antigen: a critical assessment of the most useful tumor marker 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-specific antigen as a serum marker for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. New Engl J Med 317:909–916

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Noldus J, Stamey TA (1996) Histological characteristics of radical prostatectomy specimens in men with a serum prostate specific antigen of 4 ng/ml or less. J Urol 155:441–443

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Rabbani F, Stroumbakis N, Kava BR, Cookson MS, Fair WR (1998) Incidence and clinical significance of false-negative sextant prostate biopsies. J Urol 159(4):1247–1250

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 102(4):459–462

    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):976–981

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Liss MA, Santos R, Osann K, Lau A, Ahlering TE, Ornstein DK (2010) PCA3 molecular urine assay for prostate cancer: association with pathologic features and impact of collection protocols. World J Urol [Epub ahead of print]

  10. Roobol MJ, Schröder FH, van Leenders GL, Hessels D, van den Bergh RC, Wolters T, van Leeuwen PJ (2010) Performance of prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) and prostate-specific antigen in prescreened men: reproducibility and detection characteristics for prostate cancer patients with high PCA3 scores (≥100). Eur Urol 58(6):893–899 (Epub 2010 Sep 26)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Djavan B, Fong YK, Ravery V, Remzi M, Horninger W, Susani M, Kreuzer S, Boccon-Gibod L, Bartsch G, Marberger M (2005) Are repeat biopsies required in men with PSA levels < or = 4 ng/ml? A multiinstitutional prospective European study. Eur Urol 47(1):38–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Loch T, Eppelmann U, Lehmann J, Wullich B, Loch A, Stöckle M (2004) Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate: random sextant versus biopsies of sono-morphologically suspicious lesions. World J Urol 22(5):357–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lorenz A, Ermert H, Sommerfeld HJ, Garcia-Schürmann M, Senge T, Philippou S (2000) Ultrasound elastography of the prostate. A new technique for tumor detection. Ultraschall Med 21(1):8–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Sommerfeld HJ, Garcia-Schürmann JM, Schewe J, Kühne K, Cubick F, Berges RR, Lorenz A, Pesavento A, Scheipers U, Ermert H, Pannek J, Philippou S, Senge T (2003) [Prostate cancer diagnosis using ultrasound elastography. Introduction of a novel technique and first clinical results]. Urologe A 42(7):941–945 German. Erratum in: Urologe A 42(7): 945

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Eggert T, Khaled W, Wenske S, Ermert H, Noldus J (2008) Impact of elastography in clinical diagnosis of prostate cancer. A comparison of cancer detection between B-mode sonography and elastography-guided 10-core biopsies. Urologe A 47(9):1212–1217

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Salomon G, Köllerman J, Thederan I, Chun FK, Budäus L, Schlomm T, Isbarn H, Heinzer H, Huland H, Graefen M (2008) Evaluation of prostate cancer detection with ultrasound real-time elastography: a comparison with step section pathological analysis after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 54(6):1354–1362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Salomon G, Graefen M, Heinzer H, Huland H, Pallwein L, Aigner F, Frauscher F (2009) The value of real-time elastography in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Urologe A 48(6):628–636

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Loch T, Gettys T, Cochran JS, Fulgham PF, Bertermann H (1990) Computer-aided image-analysis in transrectal ultrasound of the prostate. World J Urol 8:150–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Braeckman J, Autier P, Soviany C, Nir R, Nir D, Michielsen D, Treurnicht K, Jarmulowicz M, Bleiberg H, Govindaraju S, Emberton M (2008) The accuracy of transrectal ultrasonography supplemented with computer-aided ultrasonography for detecting small prostate cancers. BJU Int 102(11):1560–1565

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 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: Artifizielle Neuro-nale Netzwerk-Analyse (ANNA) in der Erkennung und Stadieneinteilung des Prostatakarzinoms. Urologe A 39:341–347

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Zacharias M, Jenderka KV, Heynemann H, Fornara P (2002) Transrectal ultrasound of the prostate. Current status and prospects. Urologe A 41(6):559–568

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wink M, Frauscher F, Cosgrove D, Chapelon JY, Palwein L, Mitterberger M, Harvey C, Rouvière O, de la Rosette J, Wijkstra H (2008) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and prostate cancer: a multicentre European research coordination project. Eur Urol 54(5):982–992

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Beyersdorff D, Taupitz M, Winkelmann B, Fischer T, Lenk S, Loening SA, Hamm B (2002) Patients with a history of elevated prostate-specific antigen levels and negative transrectal US-guided quadrant or sextant biopsy results: value of MR imaging. Radiology 224(3):701–706

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Weinreb JC, Blume JD, Coakley FV, Wheeler TM, Cormack JB, Sotto CK, Cho H, Kawashima A, Tempany-Afdhal CM, Macura KJ, Rosen M, Gerst SR, Kurhanewicz J (2009) Prostate cancer: sextant localization at MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging before prostatectomy—results of ACRIN prospective multi-institutional clinicopathologic study. Radiology 251(1):122–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yamamura J, Salomon G, Buchert R, Hohenstein A, Graessner J, Huland H, Graefen M, Adam G, Wedegaertner U (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer: diffusion-weighted imaging in comparison with sextant biopsy. J Comput Assist Tomogr 35(2):223–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Seitz M, Shukla-Dave A, Bjartell A, Touijer K, Sciarra A, Bastian PJ, Stief C, Hricak H, Graser A (2009) Functional magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 55(4):801–814 Epub 2009 Jan 21. Review

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Lawrentschuk N, Fleshner N (2009) The role of magnetic resonance imaging intargeting prostate cancer in patients with previous negative biopsies and elevated prostate-specific antigen levels. BJU Int 103(6):730–733

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Loch T (2007) Computerized transrectal ultrasound (C-TRUS) of the prostate: detection of cancer in patients with multiple negative systematic random biopsies. World J Urol 25(4):375–380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Loch T (2004) Computerized supported transrectal ultrasound (C-TRUS) in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Urologe A 43(11):1377–1384

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Aigner F, Pallwein L, Mitterberger M, Pinggera GM, Mikuz G, Horninger W, Frauscher F (2009) Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography using cadence-contrast pulse sequencing technology for targeted biopsy of the prostate. BJU Int 103(4):458–463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Singh H, Canto EI, Shariat SF, Miles BJ, Wheeler TM, Slawin KM (2004) Improved detection of clinically significant, curable prostate cancer with systematic 12-core biopsy. J Urol 171:1089–1092

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Vashi AR, Wojno KJ, Gillespie B, Oesterling JE (1997) Patient age and prostate gland size determine the appropriate number of cores per prostate biopsy. J Urol 157:365 Abstract 1428

    Google Scholar 

  34. Catalona WJ, Smith DS, Ratliff TL, Basler JW (1993) Detection of organ-confined prostate cancer is increased through prostate-specific antigen-based screening. JAMA 270:948–954

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Urologie des Diakonissenkrankenhauses Flensburg, Lehrkrankenhaus der Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Flensburg, Germany

    Tillmann Loch

Authors
  1. Tillmann Loch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tillmann Loch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Loch, T. Prostate cancer diagnostics: innovative imaging in case of multiple negative biopsies. World J Urol 29, 607–614 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0715-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0715-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation