Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Shear Wave Elastography for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Preliminary Study

  • Woo, Sungmin (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Sang Youn (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Cho, Jeong Yeon (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Seung Hyup (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital)
  • Received : 2013.10.20
  • Accepted : 2014.01.24
  • Published : 2014.06.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To assess the diagnostic value of shear wave elastography (SWE) for prostate cancer detection. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, 87 patients with the suspicion of prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen > 4 ng/mL and abnormal digital rectal examination) underwent a protocol-based systematic 12-core biopsy followed by targeted biopsy at hypoechoic areas on grey-scale ultrasound. Prior to biopsy, SWE was performed by placing two circular 5 mm-sized regions of interest (ROIs) along the estimated biopsy tract in each sector and one ROI for hypoechoic lesions. SWE parameters, S (mean stiffness) and R (mean stiffness ratio), were calculated and compared regarding different histopathologic tissues and their accuracy for diagnosing prostate cancer was analyzed. SWE parameters were correlated with Gleason score and were compared between indolent (< 8) and aggressive (${\geq}8$) tissues in prostate cancer patients. Results: Prostate cancer was detected in 7.5% of 1058 cores in 29.9% of 87 patients. Seven (43.8%) of 16 hypoechoic lesions were confirmed as prostate cancer. SWE parameters were significantly different among the histopathologic entities (p < 0.001). Prostate cancer was stiffer than benign tissues ($p{\leq}0.003$). Sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating characteristic curve area for diagnosing cancer were 43%, 80.8%, and 0.599, respectively, for a cutoff of S > 43.9 kPa and 60.8%, 66.4%, and 0.653, respectively, for R > 3. Both, S and R showed a significant correlation with Gleason score ($r{\geq}0.296$, $p{\leq}0.008$) and were significantly different between indolent and aggressive prostate cancer ($p{\leq}0.006$). Conclusion: Shear wave elastographic parameters are significantly different between prostate cancer and benign prostate tissue and correlate with Gleason score.

Keywords

References

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 2009;59:225-249 https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.20006
  2. Catalona WJ, Smith DS, Ornstein DK. Prostate cancer detection in men with serum PSA concentrations of 2.6 to 4.0 ng/mL and benign prostate examination. Enhancement of specificity with free PSA measurements. JAMA 1997;277:1452-1455 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03540420048028
  3. Cookson MM. Prostate cancer: screening and early detection. Cancer Control 2001;8:133-140 https://doi.org/10.1177/107327480100800203
  4. Frauscher F, Gradl J, Pallwein L. Prostate ultrasound--for urologists only? Cancer Imaging 2005;5 Spec No A:S76-S82 https://doi.org/10.1102/1470-7330.2005.0041
  5. Stroumbakis N, Cookson MS, Reuter VE, Fair WR. Clinical significance of repeat sextant biopsies in prostate cancer patients. Urology 1997;49(3A Suppl):113-118 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00178-7
  6. Halpern EJ, Strup SE. Using gray-scale and color and power Doppler sonography to detect prostatic cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:623-627 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.174.3.1740623
  7. de la Taille A, Antiphon P, Salomon L, Cherfan M, Porcher R, Hoznek A, et al. Prospective evaluation of a 21-sample needle biopsy procedure designed to improve the prostate cancer detection rate. Urology 2003;61:1181-1186 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(03)00108-0
  8. Eskew LA, Bare RL, McCullough DL. Systematic 5 region prostate biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1997;157:199-202; discussion 202-203 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65322-9
  9. Rodriguez LV, Terris MK. Risks and complications of transrectal ultrasound. Curr Opin Urol 2000;10:111-116 https://doi.org/10.1097/00042307-200003000-00011
  10. Tanter M, Bercoff J, Athanasiou A, Deffieux T, Gennisson JL, Montaldo G, et al. Quantitative assessment of breast lesion viscoelasticity: initial clinical results using supersonic shear imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 2008;34:1373-1386 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2008.02.002
  11. Barr RG, Memo R, Schaub CR. Shear wave ultrasound elastography of the prostate: initial results. Ultrasound Q 2012;28:13-20 https://doi.org/10.1097/RUQ.0b013e318249f594
  12. Ahmad S, Cao R, Varghese T, Bidaut L, Nabi G. Transrectal quantitative shear wave elastography in the detection and characterisation of prostate cancer. Surg Endosc 2013;27:3280-3287 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-2906-7
  13. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 2011;59:61-71 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.10.039
  14. Ophir J, Garra B, Kallel F, Konofagou E, Krouskop T, Righetti R, et al. Elastographic imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 2000;26 Suppl 1:S23-S29 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-5629(00)00156-3
  15. Barr RG. Sonographic breast elastography: a primer. J Ultrasound Med 2012;31:773-783 https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.2012.31.5.773
  16. Lee HY, Lee HJ, Byun SS, Lee SE, Hong SK, Kim SH. Classification of focal prostatic lesions on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and the accuracy of TRUS to diagnose prostate cancer. Korean J Radiol 2009;10:244-251 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2009.10.3.244
  17. Park YJ, Kim JA, Son EJ, Youk JH, Park CS. Quantitative shear wave elastography as a prognostic implication of papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC): elasticity index can predict extrathyroidal extension (ETE). Ann Surg Oncol 2013;20:2765-2771 https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-2927-4
  18. Delahunt B, Miller RJ, Srigley JR, Evans AJ, Samaratunga H. Gleason grading: past, present and future. Histopathology 2012;60:75-86 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.04003.x
  19. Brock M, von Bodman C, Palisaar RJ, Loppenberg B, Sommerer F, Deix T, et al. The impact of real-time elastography guiding a systematic prostate biopsy to improve cancer detection rate: a prospective study of 353 patients. J Urol 2012;187:2039-2043 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.01.063

Cited by

  1. The future perspectives in transrectal prostate ultrasound guided biopsy vol.2, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.12954/pi.14062
  2. Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Prostate Biopsy: Present and Future vol.16, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2015.16.1.90
  3. Clinical application of sonoelastography in thyroid, prostate, kidney, pancreas, and deep venous thrombosis vol.40, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0383-2
  4. Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation? vol.17, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.5.706
  5. Elastographic Strain Index in the Evaluation of Focal Lesions Detected With Transrectal Sonography of the Prostate Gland vol.35, pp.5, 2014, https://doi.org/10.7863/ultra.15.01071
  6. Preclinical evaluation of acoustic radiation force impulse measurements in regions of heterogeneous elasticity vol.35, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.14366/usg.16024
  7. The role of imaging in the diagnosis of primary prostate cancer vol.9, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1177/2051415816656120
  8. Bias of shear wave elasticity measurements in thin layer samples and a simple correction strategy vol.5, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2937-3
  9. Shear wave elastography and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the diagnosis of thyroid malignant nodules vol.5, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2016.1053
  10. Shear-Wave Elastography for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-Analysis vol.209, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.17.18056
  11. Selection and Reporting of Statistical Methods to Assess Reliability of a Diagnostic Test: Conformity to Recommended Methods in a Peer-Reviewed Journal vol.18, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.6.888
  12. Ultrasound Elastography: Review of Techniques and Clinical Applications vol.7, pp.5, 2014, https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.18650
  13. Assessment of Tumor Stiffness With Shear Wave Elastography in a Human Prostate Cancer Xenograft Implantation Model : Shear Wave Elastography in Prostate Cancer Xenograft Implantation vol.36, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.7863/ultra.16.03066
  14. Second harmonic generation (SHG) imaging of cancer heterogeneity in ultrasound guided biopsies of prostate in men suspected with prostate cancer vol.10, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/jbio.201600090
  15. Ultrasound Elastography of the Prostate Using an Unconstrained Modulus Reconstruction Technique: A Pilot Clinical Study vol.10, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranon.2017.06.006
  16. Accuracy of shear wave elastography for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: A meta-analysis vol.7, pp.None, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-02187-0
  17. Quantitative transrectal shear wave elastography undergoing salvage extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy following failed radiotherapy vol.32, pp.11, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6207-z
  18. Microscale Characterisation of Prostate Biopsies Tissues using Optical Coherence Elastography and Second Harmonic Generation imaging vol.98, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1038/labinvest.2017.132
  19. Principles of ultrasound elastography vol.43, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1475-6
  20. Does standoff material affect acoustic radiation force impulse elastography? A preclinical study of a modified elastography phantom vol.37, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14366/usg.17002
  21. Shear wave elastography in the diagnostics of parathyroid adenomas–new application of the method vol.60, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12020-018-1553-0
  22. Ultrasound Shear Wave Elastography of the Normal Prostate: Interobserver Reproducibility and Comparison with Functional Magnetic Resonance Tissue Characteristics vol.40, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1177/0161734618754487
  23. Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound and Shear Wave Elastography in Differentiating Benign and Malignant Lesions: A Network Meta-Analysis vol.9, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.00102
  24. Prediction of Postprostatectomy Biochemical Recurrence Using Quantitative Ultrasound Shear Wave Elastography Imaging vol.9, pp.None, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.00572
  25. Prostate Cancer Detection and Diagnosis: Role of Ultrasound with MRI Correlates vol.7, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-019-0318-8
  26. Stiffness of prostate gland measured by transrectal real-time shear wave elastography for detection of prostate cancer: a feasibility study vol.92, pp.1097, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20180970
  27. Diagnostic Performance of Multiparametric Transrectal Ultrasound in Localized Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Study With Magnetic Resonance Imaging vol.38, pp.7, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.14878
  28. Why Are Viscosity and Nonlinearity Bound to Make an Impact in Clinical Elastographic Diagnosis? vol.20, pp.8, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3390/s20082379
  29. Diagnostic Value of Transrectal Shear Wave Elastography for Prostate Cancer Detection in Peripheral Zone: Comparison with Magnetic Resonance Imaging vol.34, pp.5, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0902
  30. Ultrasound elastography in characterization of prostatic lesions: correlation with histopathological findings vol.93, pp.1110, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20200035
  31. Prostate Cancer Gleason Score From Biopsy to Radical Surgery: Can Ultrasound Shear Wave Elastography and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Narrow the Gap? vol.11, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.740724
  32. Experimental Evidence of Generation and Reception by a Transluminal Axisymmetric Shear Wave Elastography Prototype vol.11, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11040645
  33. Wave Propagation in a Fractional Viscoelastic Tissue Model: Application to Transluminal Procedures vol.21, pp.8, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3390/s21082778
  34. Tomoelastography Based on Multifrequency MR Elastography for Prostate Cancer Detection: Comparison with Multiparametric MRI vol.299, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2021201852
  35. Prostate Cancer Detection Using 3-D Shear Wave Elasticity Imaging vol.47, pp.7, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2021.02.006
  36. Characterisation of Collagen Re-Modelling in Localised Prostate Cancer Using Second-Generation Harmonic Imaging and Transrectal Ultrasound Shear Wave Elastography vol.13, pp.21, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13215553
  37. Causal contributors to tissue stiffness and clinical relevance in urology vol.4, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-021-02539-7