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 Scale

2011 ◽  
Vol 87 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong Wei Zhao ◽  
Jun Hang Luo ◽  
Hui Xiong Xu ◽  
Dao Hu Wang ◽  
Ying Rong Lai ◽  
...  
2014 ◽  
Vol 26 (04) ◽  
pp. 1440005
Author(s):  
Chuan-Yu Chang ◽  
Yuh-Shyan Tsai ◽  
Chuan-Wang Chang ◽  
Cheng-Min Fan

In order to detect early prostate cancer, physicians usually apply the ultrasound imaging to visualize prostate for diagnosis. However, the traditional gray-scale ultrasound images that obtained from transrectal ultrasound of the prostate are often limited in diagnosing prostate cancer because of cancer heterogeneity, which makes direct diagnosing on the image difficult. Power Doppler ultrasound images improve the diagnosis by providing extra information of blood flow. Previous study has shown that increased blood inflow exists in prostate cancer. It is not difficult to differentiate the malignancy from benign prostate diseases by inspecting Doppler spectrum at bilateral neurovascular bundle sites and using resistive index. Although it is effective; however, it is hand-held, time-consuming, and only limited in a small and static region, which might not represent the real status of the whole prostate. Therefore, this study proposed an integrated dynamic approach to estimate the resistive index of blood flow in regions of interest within or all over the whole prostate. Merits of the proposed approach include the follows: resistive index can be calculated in serial prostate frames; the calculation can be performed on integral prostate region; and the proposed approach shortened the time needed to complete the calculation on whole prostate. Experimental results show that dynamic resistive index is better than conventional resistive index, and comparable with Prostate specific antigen (PSA) test in diagnosing prostate cancer, indicating high performance of the proposed approach, which also reveals feasibility and effectively of it.


2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Akbar N. Ashrafi ◽  
Nima Nassiri ◽  
Inderbir S. Gill ◽  
Mittul Gulati ◽  
Daniel Park ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 15533-15533
Author(s):  
G. S. Merrick ◽  
S. Gutman ◽  
E. Adamovich ◽  
R. Anderson ◽  
Z. Allen ◽  
...  

15533 Background: Prostate cancer remains undetected in approximately one-third of patients following standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy. In this study, we evaluated prostate cancer incidence, anatomic distribution, Gleason score profile and tumor burden in patients diagnosed by transperineal template-guided saturation biopsy (TTSB). Methods: One hundred and seventeen patients underwent TTSB. TTSB was performed under general anesthesia. All but one patient had undergone at least one prior negative TRUS biopsy. Criteria for inclusion included an elevated PSA and/or the diagnosis of ASAP or high-grade PIN on prior biopsy. The prostate gland was divided into 24 regional biopsy locations with 1–3 biopsies per region. The median number of biopsy cores was 50. Multiple clinical parameters were evaluated as predictors for prostate cancer diagnosis. Results: The mean patient age was 64.8 years with a mean PSA of 9.1 ng/mL and a prostate volume of 78.6 cm3. On average, patients had undergone 2.1 prior negative TRUS biopsies with a mean of 22.4 core biopsies. Prostate cancer was diagnosed in 49 patients (41.9%) with a Gleason score distribution of 6–9. Patients with a prostate volume of = 60 cm3 had a higher rate of cancer diagnosis compared to patients with larger glands (66% vs. 30%). Although no anatomic region of the prostate gland was spared of cancer, there was a preponderance of anterior-based malignancies. In patients with prostate cancer, an average of 9.9 cores were involved. In multivariate analysis, pre-saturation biopsy diagnosis and prostate volume were the best predictors for prostate cancer diagnosis. Conclusions: Transperineal template-guided saturation biopsy diagnosed prostate cancer in 41.9% of previously biopsied patients. Considerable anatomic variability in prostate cancer distribution was documented. Based on this and other reports, cancer eradication will be dependent on treatment of the entire prostate gland. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 295-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Seitz ◽  
Christian Gratzke ◽  
Boris Schlenker ◽  
Alexander Buchner ◽  
Alexander Karl ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandre Peltier ◽  
Fouad Aoun ◽  
Marc Lemort ◽  
Félix Kwizera ◽  
Marianne Paesmans ◽  
...  

Introduction. To compare, in the same cohort of men, the detection of clinically significant disease in standard (STD) cores versus multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) targeted (TAR) cores.Material and Methods. A prospective study was conducted on 129 biopsy naïve men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer. These patients underwent prebiopsy mpMRI with STD systematic biopsies and TAR biopsies when lesions were found. The agreement between the TAR and the STD protocols was measured using Cohen’s kappa coefficient.Results. Cancer detection rate of MRI-targeted biopsy was 62.7%. TAR protocol demonstrated higher detection rate of clinically significant disease compared to STD protocol. The proportion of cores positive for clinically significant cancer in TAR cores was 28.9% versus 9.8% for STD cores (P<0.001). The proportion of men with clinically significant cancer and the proportion of men with Gleason score 7 were higher with the TAR protocol than with the STD protocol (P=0.003;P=0.0008, resp.).Conclusion. mpMRI improved clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate compared to STD protocol alone with less tissue sampling and higher Gleason score. Further development in imaging as well as multicentre studies using the START recommendation is needed to elucidate the role of mpMRI targeted biopsy in the management of prostate cancer.


2015 ◽  
Vol 467 (4) ◽  
pp. 437-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel T. Keefe ◽  
Nicola Schieda ◽  
Soufiane El Hallani ◽  
Rodney H. Breau ◽  
Chris Morash ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document