Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy for detecting prostate cancer: can random biopsies be reduced using the 4-dimensional technique?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We present our experience with a new technique of real time 3-dimensional sonography—“4-dimensional Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)” guided prostate biopsy. A total of 64 patients suspected of having prostate cancer based on an elevated prostate-specific antigen (greater than 4 ng/ml) formed the study group. A voluson (General Electric Vivid 3) ultrasound machine equipped with a transrectal 5–8 MHz curvilinear transducer was used. Sonography-guided prostate biopsy was performed following prostate imaging and volume calculation using 3D and 4D imaging. Biopsies of tumor suspicious areas, if present, as well as random biopsies were done. Histopathology showed prostate cancer in 15 (23.4%) and benign prostatic conditions in 49 (76.6%). TRUS examination in the 15 detected prostatic cancers showed that 6(40%) were hypoechoic, 4 (26.7%) were of mixed hypo and hyper echogenicity, 1 (6.7%) was hyperechoic, and 4 (26.7%) were isoechoic. TRUS finding of a hypoechoic lesion was significantly associated with malignancy. Other TRUS findings such as texture, calcification, and cysts did not show any association with malignancy. Mortality was zero after ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. TRUS is the diagnostic test of choice in detection of prostate cancer. With advances in the technique of TRUS, effort is being made to identify more subtle lesions in order to reduce random biopsies. 4-Dimensional TRUS does improve the diagnostic accuracy but there is still a group of patients with “invisible” cancers. Therefore, the policy of random biopsies has to be continued till this incidence can be eliminated.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Troyer DA, Mubiru J, Leach RJ et al (2004) Promise and challenge: markers of prostate cancer detection, diagnosis and prognosis. Dis Markers 20:117–128

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kataja VV (2003) ESMO Guidelines. Task force ESMO minimum clinical recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of prostate cancer. Ann Oncol 14:1010–1011

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Cheon J, Kim CS, Lee ES et al (2002) Survey of incidence of urological cancer in South Korea: a 15-year summary. Int J Urol 9:445–454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hernandez J, Thompson IM (2004) Prostate-specific antigen: a review of the validation of the most commonly used cancer biomarker. Cancer 101:894–904

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Watanabe H, Igari D, Tanahashi Y et al (1975) Transrectal ultrasonography of the prostate. J Urol 114:734–739

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Loch T, McNeal JE, Stamey TA (1995) Interpretation of bilateral positive needle biopsies in prostate cancer. J Urol 154:1078–1083

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Perrin P, Maquet JH, Bringeon G et al (1991) Screening for prostate cancer: comparison of transrectal ultrasound, prostate-specific antigen and rectal examination. Br J Urol 68:263–265

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Drago JR, York JP (1992) Prostate-specific antigen, digital rectal examination, and transrectal ultrasound in predicting the probability of prostate cancer. J Surg Oncol 49(3):172–175

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lee F, Littrup PJ, Torp-Pedersen ST et al (1988) Prostate cancer: comparison of transrectal US, and digital rectal examination for screening. Radiology 168:389–394

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gustafsson O, Norming U, Almgard LE et al (1992) Diagnostic methods in the detection of prostate cancer: a study of randomly selected population of 2,400 men. J Urol 148:1827–1831

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Potter SR, Horniger W, Tinzl M et al (2001) Age, prostate-specific antigen, and digital rectal examination as determinants of the probability of having prostate cancer. Urology 57(6):1100–1104

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Vallancien G, Prapotnich D, Veillon B (1991) Systematic prostate biopsies in 100 men with no suspicion of prostate cancer on digital rectal examination. J Urol 146(5):1308–1312

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Rifkin MD, Zerhouni EA, Gatsonis CA et al (1990) Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in staging early prostate cancer. N Engl JMed 323:621–626

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Flanigan RC, Catalona WJ, Ritchie JP et al (1994) Accuracy of digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasonography in localizing prostate cancer. J Urol 152:1506–1509

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Vo TDO, Rifkin MD, Peters TL (2001) Should ultrasound criteria of the prostate be redefined to better evaluate when and where to biopsy? Ultrasound Quaterly 17(3):171–176

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Rifkin MD, Choi H (1988) Implications of small peripheral hypoechoic lesions in endorectal US of the prostate. Radiology 166:619

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Tang J, Li X, Wang N et al (2005) Correlation between hypoechoic nodules on ultrasonography and benign hyperplasia in the prostate outer gland. J Ultrasound Med 24:483–488

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Oyen RH, Van de Voorde WM, Van Poppel HP et al (1993) Benign hyperplastic nodules that originate in the peripheral zone of the prostate gland. Radiology 189:707–711

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Loch T, Eppelemann U, Lehmann J et al (2004) Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate: random sextant versus biopsies of sono-morphologically suspicious lesions. World J Urol 22:357–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ellis WJ, Brawer MK (1994) The significance of isoechoic prostatic carcinoma. J Urol 152:2304–2307

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Al-Ghazo MA, Ghalayini IF, Matalka II (2005) Ultrasound-guided transrectal extended prostate biopsy: a prospective study. Asian J Androl 7(2):165–169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fleshner N, Klotz L (2002) Role of ‘saturation biopsy’ in the detection of prostate cancer among difficult diagnostic cases. Urology 60:93–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK et al (1989) Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 142:71–75

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Gupta NP, Ansari MS, Dass SC (2005) Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy for detecting early prostate cancer: an Indian experience. Indian J Cancer 42(3):151–154

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Fink KG, Hutarew G, Pytel A et al (2003) One 10-core prostate biopsy is superior to two sets of sextant prostate biopsies. BJU Int 92:385–388

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Naughton CK, Miller DC, Mager DE et al (2000) A prospective randomized trial comparing 6 versus 12 prostate biopsy cores: impact on cancer detection. J Urol 164(2):388–392

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Rodriguez RP, Dehesa TM, Gonzalez AM et al (2005) Results of a series of transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate in 6000 patients. Part I. Pathology, digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasound, and PSA. Arch Esp Urol 58(7):611–622

    Google Scholar 

  28. Miyake H, Kurahashi T, Murmaki M et al (2005) Significance of routine transitional zone biopsies in Japanese men undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies. Intl J Urol 12(11):964–968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Purohit RS, Shinohara K, Meng MV et al (2003) Imaging clinically localized prostate cancer. Urol Clin N Am 30:279–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mehta SS, Azzouzi AR, Hamdy FC (2004) Three dimensional ultrasound and prostate cancer. World J Urol 22:339–345

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, P.O. Box 1757, Salmiya, 22018, Kuwait

    Fawzi T. Abul

  2. Surgery Department – Urology Unit, Al-Amiri Hospital, Kuwait City, Kuwait

    Narayanaswamy Arun

  3. Department of Science, School of Basic Education, Public Authority of Applied Education & Training, Kuwait City, Kuwait

    Mona A. Abu-Assi

  4. Department of Radiologic Sciences, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Kuwait University, Kuwait City, Kuwait

    Akram M. Asbeutah

Authors
  1. Fawzi T. Abul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Narayanaswamy Arun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mona A. Abu-Assi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Akram M. Asbeutah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fawzi T. Abul.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Abul, F., Arun, N., Abu-Assi, M. et al. Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy for detecting prostate cancer: can random biopsies be reduced using the 4-dimensional technique?. Int Urol Nephrol 39, 517–524 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-006-9060-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-006-9060-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation