Dual-Modality Prostate Imaging with PET and Transrectal Ultrasound

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer S. Huber
Keyword(s):  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Dual Modality ◽  
Prostate Imaging

scholarly journals Design, Development, and Multi-Characterization of an Integrated Clinical Transrectal Ultrasound and Photoacoustic Device for Human Prostate Imaging

Diagnostics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 566 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sumit Agrawal ◽  
Kerrick Johnstonbaugh ◽  
Joseph Y. Clark ◽  
Jay D. Raman ◽  
Xueding Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Real Time ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Imaging Modality ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Human Prostate ◽  
Design Development ◽  
Imaging Device ◽  
Prostate Imaging ◽  
Clinically Significant

The standard diagnostic procedure for prostate cancer (PCa) is transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided needle biopsy. However, due to the low sensitivity of TRUS to cancerous tissue in the prostate, small yet clinically significant tumors can be missed. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with TRUS fusion biopsy has recently been introduced as a way to improve the identification of clinically significant PCa in men. However, the spatial errors in coregistering the preprocedural MRI with the real-time TRUS causes false negatives. A real-time and intraprocedural imaging modality that can sensitively detect PCa tumors and, more importantly, differentiate aggressive from nonaggressive tumors could largely improve the guidance of biopsy sampling to improve diagnostic accuracy and patient risk stratification. In this work, we seek to fill this long-standing gap in clinical diagnosis of PCa via the development of a dual-modality imaging device that integrates the emerging photoacoustic imaging (PAI) technique with the established TRUS for improved guidance of PCa needle biopsy. Unlike previously published studies on the integration of TRUS with PAI capabilities, this work introduces a novel approach for integrating a focused light delivery mechanism with a clinical-grade commercial TRUS probe, while assuring much-needed ease of operation in the transrectal space. We further present the clinical potential of our device by (i) performing rigorous characterization studies, (ii) examining the acoustic and optical safety parameters for human prostate imaging, and (iii) demonstrating the structural and functional imaging capabilities using deep-tissue-mimicking phantoms. Our TRUSPA experimental studies demonstrated a field-of-view in the range of 130 to 150 degrees and spatial resolutions in the range of 300 μm to 400 μm at a soft tissue imaging depth of 5 cm.

A method for three-dimensional prostate imaging using transrectal ultrasound

1993 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
William D. Richard ◽  
Constance K. Grimmell ◽  
Karen Bedigian ◽  
Kevin J. Frank
Keyword(s):  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Prostate Imaging

Development of a PET-Transrectal Ultrasound Prostate Imaging System

2011 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 674-681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer S. Huber ◽  
Qiyu. Peng ◽  
William W. Moses ◽  
Bryan W. Reutter ◽  
Jean Pouliot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Imaging System ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Prostate Imaging

Prostate imaging by endorectal coil MR, body helmholtz coil MR and transrectal ultrasound: Which is most useful?

1994 ◽  
Vol 49 (10) ◽  
pp. 756
Author(s):  
D. Kessel ◽  
R.J.S. Chinn ◽  
M.A. Hall-Craggs ◽  
I.D. Wilkinson ◽  
M. Paley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Helmholtz Coil ◽  
Prostate Imaging ◽  
Endorectal Coil

Accuracy of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS v2) in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17604-e17604
Author(s):  
David Michael Gill ◽  
Jay Bishoff ◽  
Steven C. Lynch ◽  
Bridget Foy ◽  
Jaden D. Evans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Prostate Imaging ◽  
Trus Biopsy ◽  
Precision Study ◽  
Intermountain Healthcare ◽  
Independent Cohort

e17604 Background: MRI-targeted biopsy is increasingly utilized over standard 12-core transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy for men with MRI-visible prostate lesions. Some clinicians defer biopsy for PI-RADS v2 category 1 and 2 lesions per the PRECISION Study (Kasivisvanathan et. Al, NEJM, 2018). The aim of this study was to independently validate the accuracy of PI-RADS v2 in detecting prostate cancer (PCa) when applied to MRI/US fusion-guided biopsies in an independent cohort of 156 patients from a large integrated community health system. Methods: Men undergoing MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy from 2016-2020 in the Intermountain Healthcare system were consecutively analyzed in this retrospective study. MRI were interpreted from four abdominal fellowship trained radiologists all with at least 5 years of experience. Fusion biopsies were performed by two urologists. Men were stratified into groups based on their PI-RADS v2 category 1-5. Biopsies were considered positive when Gleason ≥3+3. Results: A total of 156 men had 258 lesions for which they underwent MRI/US fusion-guided biopsies in the Intermountain Healthcare system from 2016 to 2020. The PCa detection rate for PIRADSv2 category 1-2 was 29.8%, category 3 32.6%, and category 4-5 37.6%. PIRADS v2 category 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 yielded any PCa in 25, 15.9, 23.8, 53.1, and 66.7%, respectively (Table). PIRADS v2 category 1-2, 3, and 4-5 yielded any PCa in 16.8%, 23.8%, and 57.7%, respectively. Conclusions: PI-RADS v2 categories generally correlate with PCa detection rates, however, to avoid biopsy, the test must be both sensitive and specific, with low false negative rates. In our institution, we show that PI-RADS 1, 2, and 3 do not rule out the presence of PCa, and therefore should not be used as the sole factor in determining the need for prostate lesion biopsy. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Diagnostic performance of PI-RADS version 2.1 compared to version 2.0 for detection of peripheral and transition zone prostate cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Madhuri Monique Rudolph ◽  
Alexander Daniel Jacques Baur ◽  
Hannes Cash ◽  
Matthias Haas ◽  
Samy Mahjoub ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Transition Zone ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Peripheral Zone ◽  
Fusion Biopsy ◽  
Prostate Imaging ◽  
Version 2.0 ◽  
Systematic Biopsy

Abstract The purpose of this study is to compare diagnostic performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version (v) 2.1 and 2.0 for detection of Gleason Score (GS) ≥ 7 prostate cancer on MRI. Three experienced radiologists provided PI-RADS v2.0 scores and at least 12 months later v2.1 scores on lesions in 333 prostate MRI examinations acquired between 2012 and 2015. Diagnostic performance was assessed retrospectively by using MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy and 10-core systematic biopsy as the reference. From a total of 359 lesions, GS ≥ 7 tumor was present in 135 lesions (37.60%). Area under the ROC curve (AUC) revealed slightly lower values for peripheral zone (PZ) and transition zone (TZ) scoring in v2.1, but these differences did not reach statistical significance. A significant number of score 2 lesions in the TZ were downgraded to score 1 in v2.1 showing 0% GS ≥ 7 tumor (0/11). The newly introduced diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) upgrading rule in v2.1 was applied in 6 lesions from a total of 143 TZ lesions (4.2%). In summary, PI-RADS v2.1 showed no statistically significant differences in overall diagnostic performance of TZ and PZ scoring compared to v2.0. Downgraded BPH nodules showed favorable cancer frequencies. The new DWI upgrading rule for TZ lesions was applied in only few cases.

Fusion of real-time transrectal ultrasound with preacquired MRI for multimodality prostate imaging

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jochen Krücker ◽  
Sheng Xu ◽  
Neil Glossop ◽  
Peter Guion ◽  
Peter Choyke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Real Time ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Prostate Imaging

scholarly journals The Prostate Health Index aids multi-parametric MRI in diagnosing significant prostate cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Hua Fan ◽  
Po-Hsun Pan ◽  
Wei-Ming Cheng ◽  
Hsin-Kai Wang ◽  
Shu-Huei Shen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Predictive Power ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Health Index ◽  
Prostate Imaging ◽  
Prostate Biopsies ◽  
Prostate Health Index ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Prostate Health

AbstractTo evaluate the performance of the Prostate Health Index (PHI) in magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound (MRI-TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). We prospectively enrolled 164 patients with at least one Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) ≥ 3 lesions who underwent MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy. Of the PSA-derived biomarkers, the PHI had the best performance in predicting csPCa (AUC 0.792, CI 0.707–0.877) in patients with PI-RADS 4/5 lesions. Furthermore, the predictive power of PHI was even higher in the patients with PI-RADS 3 lesions (AUC 0.884, CI 0.792–0.976). To minimize missing csPCa, we used a PHI cutoff of 27 and 7.4% of patients with PI-RADS 4/5 lesions could have avoided a biopsy. At this level, 2.0% of cases with csPCa would have been missed, with sensitivity and NPV rates of 98.0% and 87.5%, respectively. However, the subgroup of PI-RADS 3 was too small to define the optimal PHI cutoff. PHI was the best PSA-derived biomarker to predict csPCa in MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsies in men with PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions, especially for the patients with PI-RADS 3 lesions who gained the most value.

scholarly journals Prospective evaluation of the correlation between Prostate Imaging –Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2.1 and International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) score, and inter-observer Reproducibility of the New Version

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
GÜLŞEN YÜCEL OĞUZDOĞAN ◽  
Zehra Hilal Adıbelli ◽  
Ertugrul Sefik ◽  
Hulya Mollamehmetoğlu ◽  
Ibrahim Halil Bozkurt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
International Society ◽  
Interobserver Agreement ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Peripheral Zone ◽  
Observer Agreement ◽  
Cognitive Fusion ◽  
Prostate Imaging ◽  
A Value ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Histopathological Results

Purpose: To evaluate the correlation between PI-RADSv2.1 and International Society of Urologic Pathologists (ISUP) score for patients who underwent multiparametric-MRI(MpMRI) prior to transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided cognitive fusion biopsy (CF-Bx). And to investigate inter-observer agreement of PI-RADSv2.1. Methods: Patients who underwent MpMRI of prostate prior to first TRUS-guided CF-Bx, were included in this prospective study. MpMRI examinations were evaluated by two radiologists before biopsy according to the PI-RADSv2.1. Interobserver agreement was recorded and the final PI-RADS categorization was performed by consensus. Correlation of histopathological results with PI-RADSv2.1 score was evaluated. Lesions with Gleason Score(GS)≥6 were considered as prostate cancer (PCa). Results: A total of 84 patients with 106 lesions were included in the study. The ratio of PCa in the PI-RADS groups 1,2,3,4,5 was 0%, 0%, 22.2%, 56%, 94.45%, respectively. There was a positive correlation with a value of 0.814 between the PI-RADSv2.1 and the ISUP score. When PI-RADS≥3 is accepted as the cut-off value in peripheral zone(PZ) and the whole gland, the NPV for malignancy was 100.00%. For PI-RADS ≥4, it was 76.47% for PZ, and 80.65% for the whole gland. For the whole gland; sensitivity, specificity, and PPV of the PI-RADS≥3 were 100%, 12.9%, and 44.33%, respectively; for PI-RADS≥4, these values were 72.09%, 80.65%, and 72.09% respectively. Without applying cut-off values, the interobserver agreement for PI-RADS score was κappa:0.562. Conclusions: PI-RADSv2.1 was created in the framework of v2 to facilitate to evaluate MpMRI and to increase interobserver agreement. We believe that further studies will be necessary.

scholarly journals New TRUS Techniques and Imaging Features of PI-RADS 4 or 5: Influence on Tumor Targeting

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Inji Chang ◽  
Byung Kwan Park
Keyword(s):  
Tumor Targeting ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Imaging Features ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Mri Findings ◽  
Prostate Imaging ◽  
Trus Biopsy ◽  
Trus Image ◽  
Systematic Biopsy ◽  
Target Biopsy

PurposeTo determine if the new transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) techniques and imaging features contribute to targeting Prostate Imaging and Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4 or 5.Materials and MethodsBetween December 2018 and February 2020, 115 men underwent cognitive biopsy by radiologist A, who was familiar with the new TRUS findings and biopsy techniques. During the same period, 179 men underwent magnetic resonance imaging–TRUS image fusion or cognitive biopsy by radiologist B, who was unfamiliar with the new biopsy techniques. Prior to biopsy, both radiologists knew MRI findings such as the location, size, and shape of PI-RADS 4 or 5. We recorded how many target biopsies were performed without systematic biopsy and how many of these detected higher Gleason score (GS) than those detected by systematic biopsy. The numbers of biopsy cores were also obtained. Fisher Exact or Mann–Whitney test was used for statistical analysis.ResultsFor PI-RADS 4, target biopsy alone was performed in 0% (0/84) by radiologist A and 0.8% (1/127) by radiologist B (p>0.9999). Target biopsy yielded higher GSs in 57.7% (30/52) by radiologist A and 29.5% (23/78) by radiologist B (p = 0.0019). For PI-RADS 5, target biopsy alone was performed in 29.0% (9/31) by radiologist A and 1.9% (1/52) by radiologist B (p = 0.0004). Target biopsy yielded higher GSs in 50.0% (14/28) by radiologist A and 18.2% (8/44) by radiologist B (p = 0.0079). Radiologist A sampled fewer biopsy cores than radiologist B (p = 0.0008 and 0.0023 for PI-RADS 4 and 5), respectively.ConclusionsPI-RADS 4 or 5 can be more precisely targeted if the new TRUS biopsy techniques are applied.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document