Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Combination of C-TRUS with multiparametric MRI: potential for improving detection of prostate cancer

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

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Heidenreich A et al. Guideline on prostate cancer. European Association of Urology. www.uroweb.org. Update Feb 2012

  2. 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

  3. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universitaetsklinikum Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    T. Strunk, G. Decker, W. Willinek, S. C. Mueller & S. Rogenhofer

Authors
  1. T. Strunk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. Decker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. W. Willinek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. C. Mueller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Rogenhofer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Strunk.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-012-0924-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation