Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Urologic imaging for localized prostate cancer in 2007

  • Topic Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Increasing numbers of systematic random biopsies have virtually replaced urologic imaging as a detection and staging tool in prostate cancer. TRUS as the most commonly utilized urologic imaging is now mainly utilized to guide the biopsy needle into the correct anatomical or topographic region of the prostate. But even multiple systematic random biopsies have been shown to overlook a large number of clinically significant carcinoma. This fact has led to a dramatic increase in the number of biopsies taken in the detection of localized prostate cancer. There are some centers where 6, 10, 12, even up to 143 biopsies are taken in one sitting. This increasingly invasive and heterogeneous strategy underlines the need for an improvement in diagnostic imaging. New modalities and innovative techniques are currently being investigated in order to identify prostate cancer more accurately. The purpose of this paper is to review innovative urologic imaging techniques to identify emerging modalities that may be beneficial in the management of prostate cancer. Enhanced transrectal ultrasonography modalities, including ultrasound contrast agents, color and power doppler, elastography and computerized (C)-TRUS with artificial neural network analysis (ANNA) promise benefits in comparison to standard gray-scale ultrasonography to accurately target and diagnose prostate cancer.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bertermann H, Frentzel-Beyme B (1983) Prostatasonographie. B&K Verlag Nearum

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lee F, Gray JM, McLeary RD, Meadows TK, Kumasaka GH, Borlasa GS, Straub WH, Lee FJR, Solomon MH, McHugh T (1985) Transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: location, echogenicity, histopathology and staging. Prostate 7:117–129

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA (1989) Random systematic versus directed ultrasound-guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 142:71–74

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Flanigan RC, Catalona WJ, Richie JP, Ahmann FR, Hudson MA, Scardino PT, DeKernion JB, Ratliff TL, Kavoussi LR, Dalkin BL, Waters WB, MacFarlane MT, Southwick PC (1994) Accuracy of digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasonography in localizing prostate cancer: results of a multicenter clinical trial of 6,630 men. J Urol 152:1506–1509

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Norberg M, Egevad L, Holmberg L, Sparen P, Norlen BJ, Busch C (1997) The sextant protocol for ultrasound-guided core biopsies of the prostate underestimates the presence of cancer. Urology 50(4):562–566

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Nava L, Montorsi F, Consonni P, Scattoni V, Guazzoni G, Rigatti PJ (1997) Results of a prospective randomized study comparing 6, 12 and 18 transrectal ultrasound guided sextant biopsies in patients with elevated PSA, normal DRE, and normal prostatic ultrasound. Urol 157:59, abstract 226

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chon CH, Lai FC, McNeal JE, Presti JC Jr (2002) Extended systematic sampling. J Urol 167(6):2457–2460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Patel AR, Jones JS, Rabets J, DeOreo G, Zippe CD (2004) Parasagittal biopsies in repeat saturation biopsy. Urology 63(1):87–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chrouser KL, Lieber MM (2004) Extended and saturation needle biopsy. Curr Urol Rep 5(3):226–230

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Loch T, Bertermann H, Stöckle M (2000) Technische und anatomische Grundlagen des transrektalen Ultraschalls (TRUS) der Prostata. Urologe B 40:475–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. McNeal JE (1969) Origin and development of carcinoma in the prostate. Cancer 23:24–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. McNeal JE, Redwine E, Freiha FS, Stamey TA (1989) Zonal distribution of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Correlation with histopathologic pattern and direction of spread. Am J Surg Pathol 12: 897–901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Loch T, Eppelmann U, Lehmann J, Wullich B, Loch A, Stockle M (2004) Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate: random sextant versus biopsies of sono-morphologically suspicious lesions. World J Urol 22(5):357–360. (Epub 2004 Dec 1)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Balaji KC, Fair WR, Feleppa EJ, Porter CR, Tsai H, Liu T, Kalisz A, Urban S, Gillespie J (2002) Role of advanced 2 and 3 dimensional ultrasound for detecting prostate cancer. J Urol 168:2422–2425

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Halpern EJ, Ramey JR, Strup SE, Frauscher F, McCue P, Gomella LG (2005) Detection of prostate carcinoma with contrast-enhanced sonography using intermittent harmonic imaging. Cancer 104(11):2373–2383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Duck FA (2002) Nonlinear acoustics in diagnostic ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 28:1–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Loch T, Lehmann J, Wilhelm A, et al. Pulse Inversion Harmonic Transrectal Ultrasound (TRUS) Imaging of the Prostate. J Urol 167:361–362 (A 1435)

  19. De Jong N, Bouakaz A, Frinking P (2002) Basic acoustic properties of microbubbles. Echocardiography 19:229–240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Frauscher F, Gradl J, Pallwein L (2005) Prostate ultrasound—for urologists only? Cancer Imaging 5, Spec No A:S76–82. Review

  21. Wijkstra H, Wink MH, de la Rosette JJ (2004) Contrast specific imaging in the detection and localization of prostate cancer. World J Urol 22(5):346–350 (Epub 2004 Oct 5). Review

    Google Scholar 

  22. Halpern EJ, Frauscher F, Rosenberg M, Gomella LG (2002) Directed biopsy during contrast-enhanced sonography of the prostate. Am J Roentgenol 178(4):915–919

    Google Scholar 

  23. Strohmeyer D, Frauscher F, Klauser A, Recheis W, Eibl G, Horninger W, Steiner H, Volgger H, Bartsch G (2001) Contrast-enhanced transrectal color doppler ultrasonography (TRCDUS) for assessment of angiogenesis in prostate cancer. Anticancer Res 21(4B):2907–2913

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Konig K, Scheipers U, Pesavento A, Lorenz A, Ermert H, Senge T (2005) Initial experiences with real-time elastography guided biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 174:115–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Loch T, Leuschner I, Genberg C, Weichert-Jacobsen K, Küppers F, Yfantis Y, Evans M, Tsarev V, Stöckle M (1999) Artificial neural network analysis (ANNA) of prostatic transrectal ultrasound. Prostate 39:198–204

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Diakonissenkrankenhaus Flensburg, Lehrkrankenhaus der Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel, Marienhölzungsweg 2, 24939 , Flensburg, Germany

    Tillmann Loch

Authors
  1. Tillmann Loch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tillmann Loch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Loch, T. Urologic imaging for localized prostate cancer in 2007. World J Urol 25, 121–129 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-007-0155-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-007-0155-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation