Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of prostate cancer volume measured by HistoScanning™ and final histopathological results

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

HistoScanning™ (HS) is an ultrasound-based tissue characterization technique with encouraging results in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa). The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of total tumor volume measured by HS (TVHS) in patients with PCa.

Methods

In 148 patients with proven PCa, TVHS was measured prior to radical prostatectomy and compared with the total tumor volume in the final pathological report (TVP) using the rank-based spearman correlation test. Correlation was performed after stratification of the results by d’Amico risk categories, prostate volume, experience of HS examiner, distance of the ultrasound probe to the prostate (≤3.5 and >3.5 mm) and quality of initial HS. In addition, a re-analysis of HS data was performed by a single examiner and the TVHS from the unmodified HS data was acquired.

Results

TVP was approximately twofold higher compared to TVHS. Overall, there was no significant correlation (r s = −0.0083, p = 0.9) for the TVP and the TVHS. After adjusting for d’Amico risk categories, prostate volume, experience of examiner, distance of the ultrasound probe to the prostate and quality of initial HS, no significant correlation was found. After re-analyzing of all HS data by 1 examiner, the correlation remained not significant (r s = 0.039, p = 0.6).

Conclusions

TVHS and TVP did not correlate in this cohort of patients. We cannot recommend the use of HS at least for imaging of the total tumor volume at this time. The controversial findings for prostate HS should initiate more studies to clarify these discrepancies.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

HS:

HistoScanning™

PCa:

Prostate cancer

TVHS:

Total tumor volume measured by HistoScanning™

TVP:

Total tumor volume measured by pathology

RP:

Radical prostatectomy

PV:

Prostate volume

TRUS:

Transrectal ultrasound

r s :

Rank-based spearman correlation coefficient

PPV:

Positive predictive value

NPV:

Negative predictive value

ciPCa:

Clinically insignificant prostate cancer

References

  1. Stamey TA, Freiha FS, McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Whittemore AS, Schmid HP (1993) Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 71(3 Suppl):933–938

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM, Sigal BM, Johnstone IM (1999) Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA 281(15):1395–1400

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Carvalhal GF, Humphrey PA, Thorson P, Yan Y, Ramos CG, Catalona WJ (2000) Visual estimate of the percentage of carcinoma is an independent predictor of prostate carcinoma recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 89(6):1308–1314

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Renshaw AA, Richie JP, Loughlin KR, Jiroutek M, Chung A, D’Amico AV (1999) Maximum diameter of prostatic carcinoma is a simple, inexpensive, and independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen failure in radical prostatectomy specimens. Validation in a cohort of 434 patients. Am J Clin Pathol 111(5):641–644

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB (1994) Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 271(5):368–374

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Partin AW, Epstein JI, Cho KR, Gittelsohn AM, Walsh PC (1989) Morphometric measurement of tumor volume and per cent of gland involvement as predictors of pathological stage in clinical stage B prostate cancer. J Urol 141(2):341–345

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Carter HB, Partin AW, Epstein JI, Chan DW, Walsh PC (1990) The relationship of prostate specific antigen levels and residual tumor volume in stage A prostate cancer. J Urol 144(5):1167–1170; discussion 1170–1161

    Google Scholar 

  8. McNeal JE, Villers AA, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA (1990) Histologic differentiation, cancer volume, and pelvic lymph node metastasis in adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Cancer 66(6):1225–1233

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Salomon G, Kollerman J, Thederan I, Chun FK, Budaus 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. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.02.035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Grabski B, Baeurle L, Loch A, Wefer B, Paul U, Loch T (2011) 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(5):573–579. doi:10.1007/s00345-011-0713-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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. doi:10.1007/s00345-007-0181-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Loch T (2011) Prostate cancer diagnostics: innovative imaging in case of multiple negative biopsies. World J Urol 29(5):607–614. doi:10.1007/s00345-011-0715-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, Barentsz JO, Carey B, Futterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Hoskin PJ, Kirkham A, Padhani AR, Persad R, Puech P, Punwani S, Sohaib AS, Tombal B, Villers A, van der Meulen J, Emberton M (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 59(4):477–494. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2010.12.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Salomon G (2012) Transrectal sonoelastography in the detection of prostate cancers: a meta-analysis. BJU Int 110(11 Pt B):E621. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11349.x

  15. Simmons LA, Autier P, Zat’ura F, Braeckman J, Peltier A, Romic I, Stenzl A, Treurnicht K, Walker T, Nir D, Moore CM, Emberton M (2012) Detection, localisation and characterisation of prostate cancer by prostate HistoScanning(™). BJU Int 110(1):28–35. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10734.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Braeckman J, Autier P, Garbar C, Marichal MP, Soviany C, Nir R, Nir D, Michielsen D, Bleiberg H, Egevad L, Emberton M (2008) Computer-aided ultrasonography (HistoScanning): a novel technology for locating and characterizing prostate cancer. BJU Int 101(3):293–298. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07232.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07878.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Salomon G, Spethmann J, Beckmann A, Autier P, Moore C, Durner L, Sandmann M, Haese A, Schlomm T, Michl U, Heinzer H, Graefen M, Steuber T (2013) Accuracy of HistoScanning for the prediction of a negative surgical margin in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 111(1):60–66. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11396.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hamann MF, Hamann C, Schenk E, Al-Najar A, Naumann CM, Junemann KP (2013) Computer-aided (HistoScanning) biopsies versus conventional transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: do targeted biopsy schemes improve the cancer detection rate? Urology 81(2):370–375. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2012.08.072

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nunez-Mora C, Garcia-Mediero JM, Patino P, Orellana C, Garrido A, Rojo A, Rendon D (2013) Utility of Histoscanning prior to prostate biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma. Actas Urol Esp. doi:10.1016/j.acuro.2013.01.003

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Javed S, Chadwick E, Beveridge S, Bott S, Eden C, Langley S (2013) Does prostate HistoscanningTM accurately identify prostate cancer, measure tumour volume and assess pathological stage prior to radical prostatectomy? J Clin Urol. doi:10.1177/2051415813489682

    Google Scholar 

  22. McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA (1988) Zonal distribution of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Correlation with histologic pattern and direction of spread. Am J Surg Pathol 12(12):897–906

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gleason DF (1977) Histological grading and staging of prostate carcinoma. In: Tannenbaum M (ed) Urologic pathology: the prostate. Lea&Freiberger, Philadelphia, pp 171–198

    Google Scholar 

  24. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, Tomaszewski JE, Renshaw AA, Kaplan I, Beard CJ, Wein A (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280(11):969–974

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Salomon G (2013) Editorial comment from Dr Salomon to Prostate HistoScanning: a screening tool for prostate cancer? Int J Urol. doi:10.1111/iju.12159

    Google Scholar 

  26. Puech P, Potiron E, Lemaitre L, Leroy X, Haber GP, Crouzet S, Kamoi K, Villers A (2009) Dynamic contrast-enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of intraprostatic prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 74(5):1094–1099. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2009.04.102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Martini-Clinic, Prostate Cancer Center, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

    J. Schiffmann, J. Fischer, P. Tennstedt, B. Beyer, K. Böhm, U. Michl, M. Graefen & G. Salomon

Authors
  1. J. Schiffmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Fischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Tennstedt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. B. Beyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. K. Böhm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. U. Michl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. Graefen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. G. Salomon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Schiffmann.

Additional information

J. Schiffmann and J. Fischer have contributed equally to this manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schiffmann, J., Fischer, J., Tennstedt, P. et al. Comparison of prostate cancer volume measured by HistoScanning™ and final histopathological results. World J Urol 32, 939–944 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1211-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1211-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation