Urologia Internationalis
Original Paper
The Value of Contrast-Enhanced Transrectal Ultrasound in Predicting the Nature of Prostate Diseases and the Gleason Score of Prostate Cancer by a Subjective Blood Flow Grading ScaleZhao H.W.a · Luo J.H.a · Xu H.X.b, d · Wang D.H.a · Lai Y.R.c · Chen M.N.b · Lv J.Y.b · Xie X.Y.b · Lu M.D.b · Chen W.aDepartments of aUrology, bMedical Ultrasonics and cPathology, First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, dDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, Tenth People’s Hospital of Tongji University, Imaging Center of Tongji University, Shanghai, China
|
|
Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.
KAB
Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!
If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.
Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Article / Publication Details
Received: October 05, 2010
Accepted: April 01, 2011
Published online: August 11, 2011
Issue release date: September 2011
Number of Print Pages: 6
Number of Figures: 2
Number of Tables: 3
ISSN: 0042-1138 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0399 (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/UIN
Abstract
Objectives: To investigate the value of contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasound (CETRUS) in predicting the nature of prostate diseases and prostate cancer Gleason score. Methods: 106 patients suspected of prostate cancer were evaluated with CETRUS followed by systematic biopsy. Prostate blood flow of CETRUS was graded using a subjective 5-point scale. The relationships between ultrasound findings and biopsy outcomes, as well as prostate cancer Gleason score were analyzed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CETRUS. Results: Biopsy revealed prostate cancer in 43 of 106 patients. The proportions of malignant histology in the groups with CETRUS scores of 1–5 were 0% (0/10), 8.3% (2/24), 31.7% (13/41), 88.9% (16/18) and 92.3% (12/13), respectively. The rate of prostate cancer with a Gleason score ≧7 in the groups with a CETRUS score of 2–5 were 0% (0/2), 15.4% (2/13), 37.5% (6/16) and 91.7% (11/12), respectively. The blood flow grading scale correlated with pathological outcomes and Gleason score significantly (r = 0.66, p < 0.001; and r = 0.61, p < 0.001, respectively). ROC analysis showed the area under the ROC curve to be 0.87. Conclusions: CETRUS-based blood flow grading scale is a reliable tool for predicting the pathological outcome of prostate diseases and prostate cancer Gleason score noninvasively.
© 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel
Related Articles:
References
-
Heidenreich A, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason MD, Matveev V, Mottet N, Schmid HP, van der Kwast TH, Wiegel T, Zattoni F: Guidelines on prostate cancer; in EAU Guidelines Board and Working Panels: EAU Guidelines. Arnhem, EAU Guidelines Office, 2010, p 9.
- Pallwein L, Mitterberger M, Gradl J: Value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and elastography in imaging of prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 2007;17:39–47.
- Wink M, Frauscher F, Cosgrove D, Chapelon JY: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and prostate cancer; a multicentre European research coordination project. Eur Urol 2008;54:982–992.
- Bigler SA, Deering RE, Brawer MK: Comparison of microscopic vascularity in benign and malignant prostate tissue. Hum Pathol 1993;24:220–226.
- Wilson NM, Masoud AM, Barsoum HB, Refaat MM, Moustafa MI, Kamal TA: Correlation of power Doppler with microvessel density in assessing prostate needle biopsy. Clin Radiol 2004;59:946–950.
- Roy C, Buy X, Lang H, Saussine C, Jacqmin D: Contrast enhanced color Doppler endorectal sonography of the prostate: efficiency for detecting peripheral zone tumors and role for biopsy procedure. J Urol 2003;170:69–72.
- Halpern EJ: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging of prostate cancer. Rev Urol 2006;8:S29–S37.
- Volavsek M, Masera A, Ovcak Z: Incidental prostatic carcinoma. A predictive role of neoangiogenesis and comparison with other prognostic factors. Pathol Oncol Res 2000;6:191–196.
- Halpern EJ, Ramey JR, Strup SE: Detection of prostate carcinoma with contrast-enhanced sonography using intermittent harmonic imaging. Cancer 2005;104:2373–2383.
- Mitterberger M, Aigner F, Pinggera GM: Contrast-enhanced colour Doppler-targeted prostate biopsy: correlation of a subjective blood-flow rating scale with the histopathological outcome of the biopsy. BJU Int 2010;106:1315–1318.
- Halpern EJ, Strup SE: Using gray scale, color and power Doppler sonography to detect prostatic cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:623–627.
-
Hou AH, Swanson D, Barqawi AB: Modalities for imaging of prostate cancer. Adv Urol 2009:818065.
- Kay PA, Robb RA, Bostwick DG: Prostate cancer microvessels: a novel method for three-dimensional reconstruction and analysis. Prostate 1998;37:270–277.
- Schneider M: SonoVue, a new ultrasound contrast agent. Eur Radiol 1999;9:S347–S348.
- Claudon M, Cosgrove D, Albrecht T: Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for the contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) – update 2008. Ultraschall Med 2008;29:28–44.
- Egevad L, Granfors T, Karlberg L, Bergh A, Stattin P: Prognostic value of the Gleason score in prostate cancer. BJU Int 2002;89:538–542.
- Louvar E, Littrup PJ, Goldstein A, Yu L, Sakr W, Grignon D: Correlation of color Doppler flow in the prostate with tissue microvascularity. Cancer 1998;83:135–140.
- Mitterberger M, Pinggera GM, Horninger W, Bartsch G, Strasser H, Schäfer G, Brunner A, Halpern EJ, Gradl J, Pallwein L, Frauscher F: Comparison of contrast enhanced color Doppler targeted biopsy to conventional systematic biopsy: impact on Gleason score. J Urol 2007;178:464–468.
Article / Publication Details
Received: October 05, 2010
Accepted: April 01, 2011
Published online: August 11, 2011
Issue release date: September 2011
Number of Print Pages: 6
Number of Figures: 2
Number of Tables: 3
ISSN: 0042-1138 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0399 (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/UIN
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
Get Permission
PubMed ID
