Abstract
Purpose
To improve the detection of prostate cancer, especially in pre-biopsied patients, a guided biopsy based on radiologic findings is an option. We addressed the question, whether the combination of multiparametric MRI and computerized transrectal ultrasound (C-TRUS) improves the detection of prostate cancer.
Methods
Twenty patients suspicious of having prostate cancer were included. Seventeen patients were pre-biopsied once or more. Each patient was examined by multiparametric MRI and C-TRUS, followed by a guided transrectal prostate biopsy series. Patients were stratified in a “low-risk” and “high-risk” group. The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
Results
In 58 % (11 pat.) of patients, prostate cancer was found. In the “high-risk” group, biopsy in 73 % (8 pat.) of patients was positive for prostate cancer. All prostate cancer patients were found by C-TRUS-guided biopsies, whereas MRI did not reveal cancer in 27 %. 72 % (8 pat.) of patients had undergone radical prostatectomy. 65 % (6 pat.) had higher tumor stages after prostatectomy and 62.5 % (5 pat.) had higher Gleason-score.
Conclusions
Combination of multiparametric MRI and C-TRUS seems to improve detection of prostate cancer, especially in high-risk patients. Detection rates of C-TRUS in this study could confirm those of the primary C-TRUS studies. The benefit of MRI is the additional visualization of the tumor extension. The technique is an option for pre-biopsied patients. Both imaging methods often fail to predict correct tumor stage, but further studies are necessary.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Heidenreich A et al. Guideline on prostate cancer. European Association of Urology. www.uroweb.org. Update Feb 2012
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Urologie. Interdiziplinaere Leitlinie der Qualitaet S3 zur Frueherkennung, Diagnose und Therapie der verschiedenen Stadien des Prostatakarzinoms. Version 1.03-Mar 2011. www.krebsgesellschaft.de/download/s3-leitlinie-prostatakarzinom.pdf
Hara R, Jo Y, Fujii T et al (2008) Optimal approach for prostate cancer detection as initial biopsy: prospective randomized study comparing transperineal versus transrectal systematic 12-core biopsy. Urology 71(2):191–195
Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J et al (2006) Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Urol 175(5):1605–1612
Walz J, Graefen M, Chun FK et al (2006) High incidence of prostate cancer detected by saturation biopsy after previous negative biopsy series. Eur Urol 50(3):498–505
Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron D, Carroll P, Coakley F (2008) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: present and future. Curr Opin Urol 18(1):71–77
Roethke M, Anastasiadis AG, Lichy M, Werner M, Wagner P, Kruck S, Claussen CD, Stenzl A, Schlemmer HP, Schilling D (2012) MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy. World J Urol 30(2):213–218
Loch T, Leuschner I, Genberg C et al (2000) Improvement of transrectal ultrasound. Artificial neural network analysis (ANNA) in detection and staging of prostate cancer. Urologe A 39(4):341–347
Loch T (2004) Computerized supported transrectal ultrasound (C-TRUS) in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Urologe A 43(11):1377–1384
Grabski B, Baeurle L, Loch A et al (2011) Computerized transrectal ultrasound of the prostate in a multicenter setup (C-TRUS-MS): detection of cancer after multiple negative systematic random an in primary biopsies. World J Urol 29:573–579
Conflict of interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Strunk, T., Decker, G., Willinek, W. et al. Combination of C-TRUS with multiparametric MRI: potential for improving detection of prostate cancer. World J Urol 32, 335–339 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-012-0924-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-012-0924-z