nach oben

Erschienen in:

09.08.2023 | Topic Paper

The diagnostic accuracy of micro-ultrasound for prostate cancer diagnosis: a review

verfasst von: Pier Paolo Avolio, Giovanni Lughezzani, Maurice Anidjar, Toufic Hassan, Alexis Rompré-Brodeur, Nicolò Maria Buffi, Massimo Lazzeri, Rafael Sanchez-Salas

Erschienen in: World Journal of Urology | Ausgabe 11/2023

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Micro-UltraSound (microUS) is a new imaging modality capable of identifying and targeting suspicious areas, which might further increase the diagnostic yield of prostate biopsy (PBx). Aim of this review is to provide insights into the usefulness of microUS for the sub-stratification of prostate cancer (PCa), clinically significant PCa (i.e., any Gleason score ≥ 7 PCa; csPCa) along with non-organ-confined disease in patients undergoing PBx.

Methods

A PubMed literature search was performed using keywords: prostate cancer diagnosis, prostate cancer diagnosis surveillance, systematic biopsy, target biopsy, micro-ultrasound, and prostate risk identification using micro-ultrasound.

Results

MicroUS could significantly improve multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) findings by adding valuable anatomical and pathological information provided by real-time examination. Furthermore, microUS target biopsy could replace systematic biopsy in clinical practice by reducing the detection of clinically insignificant (ciPCa) and increasing that of csPCa. Finally, microUS may be useful in predicting the presence of non-organ confined PCa before radical prostatectomy and it could also be an effective add-on tool for patient monitoring within the active surveillance program.

Conclusion

MicroUS may represent an attractive step forward for the management of csPCa as a complementary or alternative tool to mpMRI. Nevertheless, further longitudinal studies are warranted, and the strength of the evidence is still suboptimal to provide clear recommendations for daily clinical practice.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Gandaglia G, Albers P, Abrahamsson P-A et al (2019) Structured population-based prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer: the European Association of Urology position in 2019. Eur Urol 76:142–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.04.033CrossRefPubMed

Klotz L, Chin J, Black PC et al (2021) Comparison of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy with systematic transrectal ultrasonography biopsy for biopsy-naive men at risk for prostate cancer: a phase 3 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 7:534. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.7589CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M et al (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378:1767–1777. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B et al (2019) Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol 75:570–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023CrossRefPubMed

Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R et al (2019) Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 20:100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2CrossRefPubMed

Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389:815–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1CrossRefPubMed

Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE et al (2020) MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 382:917–928. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1910038CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Drost F-JH, Osses DF, Nieboer D et al (2019) Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kasivisvanathan V, Stabile A, Neves JB et al (2019) Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy versus systematic biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 76:284–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.04.043CrossRefPubMed

10.

Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al (2021) EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer—2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 79:243–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042CrossRefPubMed

11.

Sathianathen NJ, Omer A, Harriss E et al (2020) Negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in the prostate imaging reporting and data system era: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 78:402–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.048CrossRefPubMed

12.

Hugosson J, Månsson M, Wallström J et al (2022) Prostate cancer screening with PSA and MRI followed by targeted biopsy only. N Engl J Med 387:2126–2137. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2209454CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Williams C, Ahdoot M, Daneshvar MA et al (2022) Why does magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy miss clinically significant cancer? J Urol 207:95–107. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002182CrossRefPubMed

14.

Stabile A, Giganti F, Kasivisvanathan V et al (2020) Factors influencing variability in the performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer: a systematic literature review. Eur Urol Oncol 3:145–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2020.02.005CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Hao S, Discacciati A, Eklund M et al (2022) Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening using magnetic resonance imaging or standard biopsy based on the STHLM3-MRI study. JAMA Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.5252CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Postema A, Mischi M, de la Rosette J, Wijkstra H (2015) Multiparametric ultrasound in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review. World J Urol 33:1651–1659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1523-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Correas J-M, Halpern EJ, Barr RG et al (2021) Advanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. World J Urol 39:661–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03193-0CrossRefPubMed

18.

Salib A, Halpern E, Eisenbrey J et al (2022) The evolving role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in urology: a review. World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04088-yCrossRefPubMed

19.

Ghai S, Eure G, Fradet V et al (2016) Assessing cancer risk on novel 29 MHz micro-ultrasound images of the prostate: creation of the micro-ultrasound protocol for prostate risk identification. J Urol 196:562–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.093CrossRefPubMed

20.

Klotz L, Lughezzani G, Maffei D et al (2020) Comparison of micro-ultrasound and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: a multicenter, prospective analysis. Can Urol Assoc J. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.6712CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Pavlovich CP, Hyndman ME, Eure G et al (2021) A multi-institutional randomized controlled trial comparing first-generation transrectal high-resolution micro-ultrasound with conventional frequency transrectal ultrasound for prostate biopsy. BJUI Compass 2:126–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/bco2.59CrossRefPubMed

22.

Fusco F, Emberton M, Arcaniolo D et al (2022) Prostatic high-resolution micro-ultrasound: an attractive step-forward in the management of prostate cancer patients. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-022-00611-9CrossRefPubMed

23.

Cash H, Hofbauer S, Shore N et al (2022) Prostate cancer detection by novice micro-ultrasound users enrolled in a training program. Société Int Urol J 3:62–68. https://doi.org/10.48083/KKVJ7280CrossRef

24.

Pavlovich CP, Cornish TC, Mullins JK et al (2014) High-resolution transrectal ultrasound: pilot study of a novel technique for imaging clinically localized prostate cancer. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 32:34.e27-34.e32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.01.006CrossRef

25.

Abouassaly R, Klein EA, El-Shefai A, Stephenson A (2020) Impact of using 29 MHz high-resolution micro-ultrasound in real-time targeting of transrectal prostate biopsies: initial experience. World J Urol 38:1201–1206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02863-yCrossRefPubMed

26.

Claros OR, Tourinho-Barbosa RR, Fregeville A et al (2020) Comparison of initial experience with transrectal magnetic resonance imaging cognitive guided micro-ultrasound biopsies versus established transperineal robotic ultrasound magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsies for prostate cancer. J Urol 203:918–925. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000692CrossRefPubMed

27.

Wiemer L, Hollenbach M, Heckmann R et al (2021) Evolution of targeted prostate biopsy by adding micro-ultrasound to the magnetic resonance imaging pathway. Eur Urol Focus 7:1292–1299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.06.022CrossRefPubMed

28.

Rodríguez Socarrás ME, Gomez Rivas J, Cuadros Rivera V et al (2020) Prostate mapping for cancer diagnosis: the madrid protocol. Transperineal prostate biopsies using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging fusion and micro-ultrasound guided biopsies. J Urol 204:726–733. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001083CrossRefPubMed

29.

Hofbauer SL, Luger F, Harland N et al (2022) A non-inferiority comparative analysis of micro-ultrasonography and MRI-targeted biopsy in men at risk of prostate cancer. BJU Int 129:648–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15635CrossRefPubMed

30.

Avolio PP, Lughezzani G, Fasulo V et al (2023) Assessing the role of high-resolution microultrasound among naïve patients with negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and a persistently high suspicion of prostate cancer. Eur Urol Open Sci 47:73–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2022.11.015CrossRefPubMed

31.

Cornud F, Lefevre A, Flam T et al (2020) MRI-directed high-frequency (29MhZ) TRUS-guided biopsies: initial results of a single-center study. Eur Radiol 30:4838–4846. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06882-xCrossRefPubMed

32.

Pereira-Arias JG, Sánchez-Vázquez A, Gamarra-Quintanilla M, et al ECOGRAFÍA DE ALTA RESOLUCIÓN PROSTÁTICA

33.

Lughezzani G, Maffei D, Saita A et al (2021) Diagnostic accuracy of microultrasound in patients with a suspicion of prostate cancer at magnetic resonance imaging: a single-institutional prospective study. Eur Urol Focus 7:1019–1026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.09.013CrossRefPubMed

34.

Sountoulides P, Pyrgidis N, Polyzos SA et al (2021) Micro-ultrasound–guided vs multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol 205:1254–1262. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001639CrossRefPubMed

35.

You C, Li X, Du Y et al (2022) The microultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 36:394–402. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2021.0361CrossRefPubMed

36.

Dias N, Colandrea G, Botelho F et al (2023) Diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of micro-ultrasound guided biopsies in patients with suspected prostate cancer. Cent Eur J Urol. https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2023.198CrossRef

37.

Ghai S, Perlis N, Atallah C et al (2022) Comparison of micro-US and multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection in biopsy-naive men. Radiology 305:390–398. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.212163CrossRefPubMed

38.

Lorusso V, Kabre B, Pignot G et al (2022) Comparison between micro-ultrasound and multiparametric MRI regarding the correct identification of prostate cancer lesions. Clin Genitourin Cancer 20:e339–e345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2022.01.013CrossRefPubMed

39.

Avolio PP, Lughezzani G, Paciotti M et al (2021) The use of 29 MHz transrectal micro-ultrasound to stratify the prostate cancer risk in patients with PI-RADS III lesions at multiparametric MRI: a single institutional analysis. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 39:832.e1-832.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.05.030CrossRef

40.

Fasulo V, Buffi NM, Regis F et al (2022) Use of high-resolution micro-ultrasound to predict extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer prior to surgery: a prospective single-institutional study. World J Urol 40:435–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03890-4CrossRefPubMed

41.

Pedraza AM, Parekh S, Joshi H et al (2023) Side-specific, microultrasound-based nomogram for the prediction of extracapsular extension in prostate cancer. Eur Urol Open Sci 48:72–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2022.12.005CrossRefPubMed

42.

Bhanji Y, Rowe SP, Pavlovich CP (2022) New imaging modalities to consider for men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. World J Urol 40:51–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03762-xCrossRefPubMed

43.

Eure G, Fanney D, Lin J et al (2018) Comparison of conventional transrectal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and micro-ultrasound for visualizing prostate cancer in an active surveillance population: a feasibility study. Can Urol Assoc J. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.5361CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Albers P, Wang B, Broomfield S et al (2022) Micro-ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer active surveillance. Eur Urol Open Sci 46:33–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2022.09.019CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Maffei D, Fasulo V, Avolio PP et al (2023) Diagnostic performance of micro-ultrasound at MRI-guided confirmatory biopsy in patients under active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Prostate. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.24532CrossRefPubMed

46.

Harland N, Stenzl A (2021) Micro-ultrasound: a way to bring imaging for prostate cancer back to urology. Prostate Int 9:61–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prnil.2020.12.002CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Basso Dias A, Ghai S (2023) Micro-ultrasound: current role in prostate cancer diagnosis and future possibilities. Cancers 15:1280. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15041280CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

Calace FP, Napolitano L, Arcaniolo D et al (2022) Micro-ultrasound in the diagnosis and staging of prostate and bladder cancer: a comprehensive review. Medicina (Mex) 58:1624. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58111624CrossRef

49.

Klotz L, Andriole G, Cash H et al (2022) Optimization of prostate biopsy—micro-ultrasound versus MRI (OPTIMUM): a 3-arm randomized controlled trial evaluating the role of 29 MHz micro-ultrasound in guiding prostate biopsy in men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer. Contemp Clin Trials 112:106618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2021.106618CrossRefPubMed

Titel: The diagnostic accuracy of micro-ultrasound for prostate cancer diagnosis: a review
verfasst von: Pier Paolo Avolio
Giovanni Lughezzani
Maurice Anidjar
Toufic Hassan
Alexis Rompré-Brodeur
Nicolò Maria Buffi
Massimo Lazzeri
Rafael Sanchez-Salas
Publikationsdatum: 09.08.2023
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: World Journal of Urology / Ausgabe 11/2023
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04521-w

Neu im Fachgebiet Urologie

Patrone im Penis bringt Urologen in Gefahr

30.05.2024 Operationen am Penis Nachrichten

In Lebensgefahr brachte ein junger Mann nicht nur sich selbst, sondern auch das urologische Team, das ihm zu Hilfe kam: Er hatte sich zur Selbstbefriedigung eine scharfe Patrone in die Harnröhre gesteckt.

15% bedauern gewählte Blasenkrebs-Therapie

29.05.2024 Urothelkarzinom Nachrichten

Ob Patienten und Patientinnen mit neu diagnostiziertem Blasenkrebs ein Jahr später Bedauern über die Therapieentscheidung empfinden, wird einer Studie aus England zufolge von der Radikalität und dem Erfolg des Eingriffs beeinflusst.

Costims – das nächste heiße Ding in der Krebstherapie?

28.05.2024 Onkologische Immuntherapie Nachrichten

„Kalte“ Tumoren werden heiß – CD28-kostimulatorische Antikörper sollen dies ermöglichen. Am besten könnten diese in Kombination mit BiTEs und Checkpointhemmern wirken. Erste klinische Studien laufen bereits.

Fehlerkultur in der Medizin – Offenheit zählt!

28.05.2024 Fehlerkultur Podcast

Darüber reden und aus Fehlern lernen, sollte das Motto in der Medizin lauten. Und zwar nicht nur im Sinne der Patientensicherheit. Eine negative Fehlerkultur kann auch die Behandelnden ernsthaft krank machen, warnt Prof. Dr. Reinhard Strametz. Ein Plädoyer und ein Leitfaden für den offenen Umgang mit kritischen Ereignissen in Medizin und Pflege.

Update Urologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

The diagnostic accuracy of micro-ultrasound for prostate cancer diagnosis: a review