Tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) uses the Doppler principle to quantify the movement of biological tissues.
OBJECTIVE:
To investigate the contribution of TDI parameters derived during magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound (MRI/US) fusion-guided biopsy for prostate cancer (PCa) discrimination.
METHODS:
From March 2016 to Dec. 2018, 75 men with suspected PCa prospectively underwent fusion-guided prostate biopsy. TDI overlaid on predefined target lesion were compared to the confirmed contralateral tumor-free area of the prostate gland (using Image J). Diagnostic value of TDI parameters was assessed using histopathology as standard of reference.
RESULTS:
Thirty-seven patients were diagnosed with PCa (49.3%), among them 27 with clinically significant PCa (Gleason score > 3 + 3 = 6 (ISUP 1). The LES/REF ratio was lower in confirmed PCa patients compared to patients without PCa (0.42, IQR, 0.22–0.59 vs. 0.52, IQR, 0.40–0.72, p = 0.017). TDI parameters allowed differentiation of low-risk from high-to-intermediate-risk PCa (ISUP 2 versus ISUP 3) based on lower pixel counts within the target ROI (1340, IQR 596–2430 vs. 2687, IQR 2453–3216, p = 0.004), lower pixel percentage (16.4 IQR 11.4–29.5 vs. 27.3, IQR 22.1–39.5; p = 0.005), and lower LES/REF ratios (0.29, IQR 0.19–0.51 vs. 0.52, IQR 0.47–0.74, p = 0.001).
CONCLUSION:
TDI of prostate lesions prelocated by MRI discriminates between cancerous and noncancerous lesions and further seems to enable characterization of PCa aggressiveness. This widely available US technique may improve confidence in target lesion localization for tissue sampling.
MottetN, BellmuntJ, BollaM, BriersE, CumberbatchMG, De SantisM, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer, Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71(4):618–29. 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003.
2.
SarkarS, DasS. A Review of Imaging Methods for Prostate Cancer Detection. Biomed Eng Comput Biol. 2016;7(Suppl 1):1–15. 10.4137/BECB.S34255.
3.
RichenbergJ, LøgagerV, PanebiancoV, RouviereO, VilleirsG, SchootsIG. The primacy of multiparametric MRI in men with suspected prostate cancer. Eur Radiol. 2019; 10.1007/s00330-019-06166-z.
4.
MaxeinerA, KittnerB, BlobelC, WiemerL, HofbauerSL, FischerT, et al. Primary magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion-guided biopsy of the prostate. BJU Int. 2018;122(2):211–8. 10.1111/bju.14212.
5.
XuG, XiangL, WuJ, ShaoH, LiuH, DingS, et al. The accuracy of prostate lesion localization in cognitive fusion. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2020;74(3):223–9. 10.3233/CH-180423.
6.
ChaloupkaM, BischoffR, PfitzingerP, LelligE, LedderoseS, BuchnerA, et al. Detection of Gleason 6 prostate cancer in patients with clinically significant prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2019;73(1):105–11. 10.3233/CH-199223.
7.
MaxeinerA, FischerT, SchwabeJ, BaurADJ, StephanC, PetersR, et al. Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) and Quantitative Perfusion Analysis in Patients with Suspicion for Prostate Cancer. Ultraschall der Medizin - Eur J Ultrasound. 2019;40(03):340–8. 10.1055/a-0594-2093.
8.
TylochDJ, TylochJF, AdamowiczJ, JuszczakK, OstrowskiA, WarsińskiP, et al. Elastography in prostate gland imaging and prostate cancer detection. Med Ultrason. 2018;20(4):515. 10.11152/mu-1655.
9.
SalomonG, KöllermanJ, ThederanI, ChunFKH, BudäusL, SchlommT, et al. Evaluation of Prostate Cancer Detection with Ultrasound Real-Time Elastography: A Comparison with Step Section Pathological Analysis after Radical Prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2008;54(6):1354–62. 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.02.035.
10.
MaxeinerA, StephanC, DurmusT, SlowinskiT, CashH, FischerT. Added Value of Multiparametric Ultrasonography in Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Ultrasonography Fusion–guided Biopsy of the Prostate in Patients With Suspicion for Prostate Cancer. Urology. 2015;86(1):108–14. 10.1016/j.urology.2015.01.055.
11.
MannaertsCK, WildeboerRR, PostemaAW, HagemannJ, BudäusL, TilkiD, et al. Multiparametric ultrasound: evaluation of greyscale, shear wave elastography and contrast-enhanced ultrasound for prostate cancer detection and localization in correlation to radical prostatectomy specimens. BMC Urol. 2018;18(1):98. 10.1186/s12894-018-0409-5.
IsaazK, Munoz del RomeralL, LeeE, SchillerNB. Quantitation of the motion of the cardiac base in normal subjects by Doppler echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 6(2):166–76.
14.
ThomasA, WarmM, HoopmannM, DiekmannF, FischerT. Tissue Doppler and strain imaging for evaluating tissue elasticity of breast lesions. Acad Radiol. 2006;14(5):522–9. 10.1016/j.acra.2006.12.016.
15.
MooreCM, KasivisvanathanV, EggenerS, EmbertonM, FüttererJJ, GillIS, et al. Standards of Reporting for MRI-targeted Biopsy Studies (START) of the Prostate: Recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur Urol. 2013;64(4):544–52. 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.030.
16.
WeinrebJC, BarentszJO, ChoykePL, CornudF, HaiderMA, MacuraKJ, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2015;69(1):16–40. 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052.
HaffnerJ, LemaitreL, PuechP, HaberG-P, LeroyX, JonesJS, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int. 2011;108(8 Pt 2):E171–8. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10112.x.
19.
WallisCJD, HaiderMA, NamRK. Role of mpMRI of the prostate in screening for prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(3):464–71. 10.21037/tau.2017.04.31.
20.
KasivisvanathanV, RannikkoAS, BorghiM, PanebiancoV, MynderseLA, VaaralaMH, et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(19):1767–77. 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993.
21.
van der LeestM, CornelE, IsraëlB, HendriksR, PadhaniAR, HoogenboomM, et al. 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. 2019;75(4):570–8. 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023.
22.
SonnGA, ChangE, NatarajanS, MargolisDJ, MacairanM, LieuP, et al. Value of Targeted Prostate Biopsy Using Magnetic Resonance–Ultrasound Fusion in Men with Prior Negative Biopsy and Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen. Eur Urol. 2013;65(4):809–15. 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.025.
23.
VourgantiS, RastinehadA, YerramNK, NixJ, VolkinD, HoangA, et al. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy Detect Prostate Cancer in Patients with Prior Negative Transrectal Ultrasound Biopsies. J Urol. 2012;188(6): 2152–7. 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.025.
24.
BrockM, EggertT, PalisaarRJ, RoghmannF, BraunK, LöppenbergB, et al. Multiparametric Ultrasound of the Prostate: Adding Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound to Real-Time Elastography to Detect Histopathologically Confirmed Cancer. J Urol. 2012;189(1):93–8. 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.183.
25.
IsmailM, PetersenRO, AlexanderAA, NewschafferC, GomellaLG. Color Doppler imaging in predicting the biologic behavior of prostate cancer: correlation with disease-free survival. Urology. 1997;50(6):906–12. 10.1016/S00904295(97)00403-2.
26.
MitterbergerM, PinggeraGM, HorningerW, BartschG, StrasserH, SchäferG, et al. Comparison of Contrast Enhanced Color Doppler Targeted Biopsy to Conventional Systematic Biopsy: Impact on Gleason Score. J Urol. 2007;178(2):464–8. 10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.107.
27.
BoukadoumN, TouatiR, DemuynckF, MorvanJ, KadiA, DraouatS. [Is power Doppler US a good predictor of prostate cancer aggressiveness]. J Radiol. 2009;90(3 Pt 1):299–303.
28.
ChengS, RifkinMD. Color Doppler imaging of the prostate: important adjunct to endorectal ultrasound of the prostate in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Ultrasound Q. 2001;17(3):185–9.
29.
HacklC, SchachererD, AndersM, WiedemannLM, MohrA, SchlittHJ, et al. Improved Detection of preclinical Colorectal Liver Metastases by High Resolution Ultrasound including Molecular Ultrasound Imaging using the targeted Contrast Agent BR55. Ultraschall der Medizin. 2016;37(3):290–6. 10.1055/s-0041-111838.
30.
TardyI, PochonS, TheraulazM, EmmelP, PassantinoL, TranquartF, et al. Ultrasound molecular imaging of VEGFR2 in a rat prostate tumor model using BR55. Invest Radiol. 2010;45(10):573–8. 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181ee8b83.
31.
HanM, SnowPB, EpsteinJI, ChanTY, JonesKA, WalshPC, et al. A neural network predicts progression for men with gleason score 3+4 versus 4+3 tumors after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2000;56(6):994–9. 10.1016/s0090-4295(00)00815-3.
32.
HannaB, RanasingheW, LawrentschukN. Risk stratification and avoiding overtreatment in localized prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. 2019;1. 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000672.
33.
JungEM, WiggermannP, SchichoA, LerchbaumerM, StroszczynskiC, FischerT, et al. Contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) with parametric imaging after irreversible electroporation (IRE) of the prostate to assess the success of prostate cancer treatment. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2020;1-8. 10.3233/ch-201000.
34.
WiesingerI, BeyerLP, ZausigN, VerlohN, WiggermannP, StroszczynskiC, et al. Evaluation of integrated color-coded perfusion analysis for contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) after percutaneous interventions for malignant liver lesions: First results. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2018;69(1–2):59–67. 10.3233/CH-189131.
