Shear wave elastography for localization of prostate cancer lesions and assessment of elasticity thresholds: implications for targeted biopsies and active surveillance protocols.

PURPOSE Shear wave elastography allows the detection of cancer by using focused ultrasound pulses for locally deforming tissue. The differences in tissue elasticity and stiffness have been used increasingly in breast cancer imaging and help detect potential tumor lesions in the prostate. In this study we localized prostate cancer lesions using shear wave elastography before radical prostatectomy and assessed the examiner independent elasticity threshold for cancer foci detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS Shear wave elastography scanning of the whole prostate was performed before radical prostatectomy in 60 consecutive patients with high, intermediate and low risk disease. Localization of suspected lesions and density threshold (kPa) were recorded in up to 12 areas and resulted in 703 different fields. Shear wave elastography findings were correlated with final pathology. Initially 381 areas were used to establish shear wave elastography cutoffs (development cohort 32 patients). Subsequently these cutoffs were validated in 322 areas (validation cohort 28 patients). RESULTS Using shear wave elastography significant differences were recorded for the elasticity of benign tissue vs prostate cancer nodules at 42 kPa (range 29 to 71.3) vs 88 kPa (range 54 to 132) (all p <0.001). Median cancer lesion diameter was 26 mm (range 18 to 41). Applying the most informative cutoff of 50 kPa to the validation cohort resulted in 80.9% and 69.1% sensitivity and specificity, respectively, and 74.2% accuracy for detecting cancer nodules based on final pathological finding. The corresponding positive and negative predictive values were 67.1% and 82.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Shear wave elastography allows the identification of cancer foci based on shear wave elastography differences. Moreover, reliable cutoffs for this approach can be established, allowing examiner independent localization of prostate cancer foci.

[1]  François Cornud,et al.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection and localization of prostate cancer: combination of T2‐weighted, dynamic contrast‐enhanced and diffusion‐weighted imaging , 2011, BJU international.

[2]  C. Roehrborn,et al.  Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: predictive nomogram and internal validation , 2006, BJU international.

[3]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Transition zone prostate cancer: detection and localization with 3-T multiparametric MR imaging. , 2013, Radiology.

[4]  T. Habuchi,et al.  Pathological and biochemical outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men with low‐risk prostate cancer meeting the Prostate Cancer International: Active Surveillance criteria , 2013, BJU international.

[5]  A learning curve assessment of real-time sonoelastography of the prostate , 2014, World Journal of Urology.

[6]  A. Renshaw,et al.  Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the prostate gland. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[7]  W. Horninger,et al.  Potentials and Limitations of Real-Time Elastography for Prostate Cancer Detection: A Whole-Mount Step Section Analysis , 2012, TheScientificWorldJournal.

[8]  R. Memo,et al.  Shear Wave Ultrasound Elastography of the Prostate: Initial Results , 2012, Ultrasound quarterly.

[9]  E. Messing,et al.  Quantitative characterization of viscoelastic properties of human prostate correlated with histology. , 2008, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[10]  B. G. Blijenberg,et al.  Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  M. Roobol,et al.  Infectious complications and hospital admissions after prostate biopsy in a European randomized trial. , 2012, European urology.

[12]  L. Bains,et al.  Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging detects significant prostate cancer with high probability. , 2014, The Journal of urology.

[13]  J. Babb,et al.  Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert scales. , 2013, Radiology.

[14]  Thomas Wiegel,et al.  EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. , 2011, European urology.

[15]  J. McNeal.  The zonal anatomy of the prostate , 1981, The Prostate.

[16]  M. Tanter,et al.  Investigating liver stiffness and viscosity for fibrosis, steatosis and activity staging using shear wave elastography. , 2015, Journal of hepatology.

[17]  J. Lee,et al.  Upgrading of Gleason score and prostate volume: a clinicopathological analysis , 2013, BJU international.

[18]  Jiani Hu,et al.  The clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging in combination with T2-weighted imaging in diagnosing prostate carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2012, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[19]  B. Trock,et al.  Pathological outcomes in men with low risk and very low risk prostate cancer: implications on the practice of active surveillance. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[20]  P. Walsh,et al.  Predictors of cancer in repeat extended multisite prostate biopsy in men with previous negative extended multisite biopsy. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[21]  Thomas Deffieux,et al.  Shear Wave Spectroscopy for In Vivo Quantification of Human Soft Tissues Visco-Elasticity , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[22]  T. Schlomm,et al.  Evaluation of prostate cancer detection with ultrasound real-time elastography: a comparison with step section pathological analysis after radical prostatectomy. , 2008, European urology.

[23]  M. Roethke,et al.  Definitions of terms, processes and a minimum dataset for transperineal prostate biopsies: a standardization approach of the Ginsburg Study Group for Enhanced Prostate Diagnostics , 2013, BJU international.

[24]  D. Gleason,et al.  PREDICTION OF PROGNOSIS FOR PROSTATIC ADENOCARCINOMA BY COMBINED HISTOLOGICAL GRADING AND CLINICAL STAGING , 2017, The Journal of urology.

[25]  J. Greenleaf,et al.  Shearwave dispersion ultrasound vibrometry (SDUV) on swine kidney. , 2011, IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control.

[26]  O. Rouvière,et al.  Characterization of prostate lesions as benign or malignant at multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of three scoring systems in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. , 2014, Radiology.

[27]  T. H. van der Kwast,et al.  EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. , 2014, European urology.

[28]  M. Brock,et al.  The impact of real-time elastography guiding a systematic prostate biopsy to improve cancer detection rate: a prospective study of 353 patients. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[29]  Deanna L Langer,et al.  Intermixed normal tissue within prostate cancer: effect on MR imaging measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient and T2--sparse versus dense cancers. , 2008, Radiology.

[30]  D. Noh,et al.  Clinical application of shear wave elastography (SWE) in the diagnosis of benign and malignant breast diseases , 2011, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[31]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  The independent value of tumour volume in a contemporary cohort of men treated with radical prostatectomy for clinically localized disease , 2010, BJU international.

[32]  M Bolla,et al.  EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. , 2001, European urology.

[33]  O. Clark,et al.  Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy. , 2011, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[34]  A. Thompson,et al.  Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses: value of shear wave elastography according to lesion stiffness combined with greyscale ultrasound according to BI-RADS classification , 2012, British Journal of Cancer.