Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Computerized transrectal ultrasound (C-TRUS) of the prostate: detection of cancer in patients with multiple negative systematic random biopsies

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

An Erratum to this article was published on 15 January 2012

Abstract

This study was designed to compare the diagnostic yield of computerized transrectal ultrasound (C-TRUS) guided biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer in a group of men with a history of multiple systematic random biopsies with no prior evidence of prostate cancer. The question was asked: Can we detect cancer by C-TRUS that has been overlooked by multiple systematic biopsies? The entrance criteria for this study were prior negative systematic random biopsies regardless of number of biopsy sessions or number of individual biopsy cores. Serial static TRUS images were evaluated by C-TRUS, which assessed signal information independent of visual gray scale. Five C-TRUS algorithms were utilized to evaluate the information of the ultrasound signal. Interpretation of the results were documented and the most suspicious regions marked by C-TRUS were biopsied by guiding the needle to the marked location. Five hundred and forty men were biopsied because of an elevated PSA or abnormal digital rectal exam. 132 had a history of prior negative systematic random biopsies (1–7 sessions, median: 2 and between 6 and 72 individual prostate biopsies, median: 12 cores). Additionally, a diagnostic TUR-P of the prostate with benign result was performed in four patients. The PSA ranged from 3.1–36 ng/ml with a median of 9.01 ng/ml. The prostate volume ranged from 6–203 ml with a median of 42 ml. Of the 132 patients with prior negative systematic random biopsies, cancer was found in 66 (50%) by C-TRUS targeted biopsies. In this group the median number of negative biopsy sessions was two and a median of 12 biopsy cores were performed. From literature we would expect a cancer detection rate in this group with systematic biopsies of approximately 7%. We only found five carcinomas with a Gleason Score (GS) of 5, 25 with GS 6, 22 with GS 7, 8 with GS 8 and even 7 with GS 9. The results of this prospective clinical trail indicates that the additional use of the C-TRUS identifies clinical significant cancerous lesions that could not been visualized or detected by systematic random biopsies in a very high percentage. In addition, the results of the study support the efforts to search for strategies that utilize expertise and refinement of imaging modalities rather than elevating the number of random biopsies (f.e. 141 cores in one session) in the detection of prostate cancer.

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Flanigan RC, Catalona WJ, Richie JP, Ahmann FR, Hudson MA, Scardino PT, DeKernion JB, Ratliff 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 

  8. Nava L, Montorsi F, Consonni P, Scattoni V, Guazzoni G, Rigatti PJ (1997) Results of a prospective randomized study comparing 6, 12 and 18 transrectal ultrasound guided sextant biopsies in patients with elevated PSA, normal DRE, and normal prostatic ultrasound. Urology 157:59, abstract 226

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 

  12. 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 

  13. 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 

  14. 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 neuronale netzwerk-analyse (ANNA) in der erkennung und stadieneinteilung des prostatakarzinoms. Urologe A 39:341–347

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 

  16. 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 

  17. 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 

  18. Carter HB, Hamper UM, Sheth S, Sanders RC, Epstein JI, Walsh PC (1989) Evaluation of transrectal ultrasound in the early detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 142:1008–1010

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Shinohara K, Scardino PT, Carter SC, Wheeler TM (1989) Pathologic basis of the sonographic appearance of the normal and malignant prostate. Urol Clin Am 16:675–678

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee F, Gray JM, McLeary RD, Meadows TK, Kumasaka GH, Borlaza GS, Straub WH, Lee F Jr, Solomon MH, McHugh TA, et al (1985) Transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: location, echogenicity, histopathology, and staging. Prostate 7:117–129

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Mettlin C, Murphy GP, Babaian RJ, Chesley A, Kane RA, Littrup PJ, Mostofi FK, Ray PS, Shanberg AM, Toi A (1996) The results of a five-year early prostate cancer detection intervention. Investigators of the American Cancer Society National Prostate Cancer Detection Project. Cancer 77:150–159

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 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 

  24. 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 

  25. 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 

  26. Chodak GW, Schoenberg HW (1984) Early detection of prostate cancer by routine screening. JAMA 252:3661–3664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

Additional information

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0821-x

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Loch, T. 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 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-007-0181-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-007-0181-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation