Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical evaluation of transrectal power Doppler imaging in the detection of prostate cancer

  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To evaluate the clinical usefulness of power Doppler imaging (PDI) compared to gray-scale transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) in the detection of prostate cancer. A total of 101 men with abnormally high serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels and/or abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) findings were assessed using TRUS and PDI. Random systematic sextant and bilateral far lateral prostate biopsies were performed in all cases. In addition, when TRUS revealed a hypoechoic lesion or PDI revealed a hypervascular lesion (HVL), these lesions were directly biopsied. Of the 101 patients, 48 (47.5%), 42 (41.5%) and 42 (41.5%) were suspicious of having prostate cancer by DRE, TRUS and PDI, respectively. Prostate needle biopsy revealed prostate cancer in 39 patients (38.6%) and benign prostatic diseases in 62 patients (61.4%). If prostate needle biopsy was avoided when PDI was negative, then PDI eliminated the need for biopsy in 59 of the 101 patients (rate of biopsy procedures saved: 58.4%) and missed only 8 (13.6%) prostate cancers. Moreover, in 63 patients with intermediate PSA (3–10 ng/ml), the rate of biopsy procedures saved by DRE, TRUS, and PDI was 60.3%, 65.1%, and 68.3%, respectively, and the rate of cancers missed was 26.3%, 19.5%, and 14.0%, respectively. In a total of 826 specimens of TRUS-guided prostate biopsy, 126 (15.3%) specimens had adenocarcinoma. Site by site based analysis of the present series revealed 34.1% of prostate cancer sites were isoechoic and hypervascular. On a site by site basis, PDI had better sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value than TRUS. In 48 patients without abnormal DRE findings, on a site by site basis, the sensitivities of TRUS and PDI were 22.9% and 34.4%, respectively. Gleason score was associated with a positive rate of PDI on both a patient basis and site by site basis. From these results, on a patient basis, we conclude that PDI was helpful in the indication for prostate biopsy for all patients or patients with intermediate PSA level. On a site by site basis, PDI may be able to select prostate cancer sites at biopsy, in particular inpatients without abnormal DRE findings.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Beerlage HP, de Reijke TM, de la Rosette JJ. Considerations regarding prostate biopsies. Eur Urology 1998; 34: 303.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Nakagawa S, Watanabe H, Watanabe M. A pilot study of mass screening program for prostatic cancer by means of prostate specific antigen (PSA filter paper method). Jpn J Urol 1997; 88: 399.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hinman F. Screening for prostatic cancer. J Urol 1991; 145: 126.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Shinohara K, Wheeler TM, Scardino PJ. The appearance of prostate cancer on transrectal ultrasonography. Correlation of imaging and pathological examination. J Urol 1989; 142: 76.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Mettlin C, Lee F, Grago J, Murphy GP, The American Cancer Society National Prostate Cancer Detection Group. Findings on the detection of early prostate cancer in 2425 men. Cancer 1991; 67: 2949.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Rifkin MD, Sudakoff GS, Alexander AA. Prostate: techniques, results and potential applications of color Doppler US scanning. Radiology 1993; 186: 509.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Newman JS, Bree RL, Rubin JM. Prostate cancer: Diagnosis with color Doppler sonography with histologic correlation of each biopsy site. Radiology 1995; 195: 86.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Neumaier CE, Martinoli C, Derchi LE, Silvestri E, Rosenberg I. Normal prostate gland: examination with color Doppler US. Radiology 1995; 196: 453.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kelly IMG, Lees WR, Rickards D. Prostate cancer and the role of color Doppler US. Radiology 1993; 186: 153.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cornud F, Belin X, Piron D, Chretien Y, Flam T, Casanova JM, Helenon O, Mejean A, Thiounn N, Moreau JF. Color Dopplerguided prostate biopsies in 591patients with an elevated serum PSA level: Impact on Gleason score for nonpalpable lesions. Urology 1997; 49: 709.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rubin JM, Bude RO, Carson PL, Bree RL, Adler RS. Power Doppler US. A potentially useful alternative to mean-frequency-based color Doppler US. Radiology 1994; 190: 853.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ethan JH, Ferdinand F, Flemming F, Stephen ES, Levon NN, Patrick OK, Leonard GG. High-frequency Doppler US of the prostate: effect of patient position. Radiology 2002; 222: 634.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cooner WH, Mosley BR, Rutherford CL Jr, Beard JH, Pond HS, Terry WJ, Igel TC, Kidd DD. Prostate cancer detection in a clinical urological practice by ultrasonography, digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen. J Urol 1990; 143: 1146.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ekici S, Ozen H, Agildere M, Ergen A, Ozkardes H, Ayhan A, Kendi S. A comparison of transrectal ultrasonography and endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in the local staging of prostatic carcinoma. Br J Urol 1999; 83: 796.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bree RL. The role of color Doppler and staging biopsies in prostate cancer detection. Urology 1997; 49: 3A: 31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Aarnink RG, Beerlage HP, De La Rosette JJ, Debruyne FM, Wijkstra H. Transrectal ultrasound of the prostate: innovations and future applications. J Urol 1998; 159: 1568.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Franco OE, Arima K, Yanagawa M, Kawamura J. The usefulness of power Doppler ultrasonography for diagnosing prostate cancer: histological correlation of each biopsy site. BJU international 2000; 85: 1049.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Sauvain JL, Palascak P, Bremon JM. Power Doppler ultrasonography and hypoechoic nodules of the peripheral prostate: perspectives and limitations. J Radiol 1997; 78: 491.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Cho JY, Kim SH, Lee SE. Diffuse prostatic lesion: role of color Doppler and power Doppler ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med 1998; 17: 283.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Angelos KL, Shahrokh FS, Utsunomiya T, Kevin MS. Characteristics of normal prostate vascular anatomy as displayed by power doppler: The Prostate 2001; 46: 281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Okihara K, Kojima M, Nakanouchi T, Okada K, Miki T. Transrectal power Doppler imaging in the detection of prostate cancer. BJU international 2000; 85: 1053.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lavoipierre AM, Snow RM, Frydenberg M, Gunter D, Reisner G, Royce PL, Lavoipierre GJ. Prostatic cancer: role of color Doppler imaging in transrectal sonography. Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171: 205.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Sakarya ME, Arslan H, Unal O, Atilla MK, Aydin S. The role of power Doppler ultrasonography in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a preliminary study. Br J Urol 1998; 82: 386.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Djavan B, Zlotta A, Kratzik C, Remzi M, Seitz C, Schulman CC, Marberger M. PSA, PSA density, PSA density of transition zone, free/total PSA ratio, and PSA velocity for early detection of prostate cancer in men with serum PSA 2.5–4.0 ng/ml. Urology 1999; 54: 517.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Polascik TJ, Oesterling JE, Partin AW. Prostate specific antigen: a decade of discovery — what we have learned and where we are going. J Urol 1999; 162: 293.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Brawer MK, Deering RE, Brown M. Predictors of pathologic stage in prostatic carcinoma: the role of neovascularity. Cancer 1994; 73: 678.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Nakanouchi T, Okihara K, Kojima M, Ukimura O, Yokoyama K, Takamatsu T, Miki T. Possible use of transrectal power doppler imaging as an indicator of microvascular density of prostate cancer: Urology 2001; 58: 573.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Okihara K, Watanabe H, Kojima M. Kinetic study of tumor blood flow in prostatic cancer using power doppler imaging. Ultrasound. Med Biol 1999; 25: 89.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Unal D, Sedelaar JPM, Aarnink RG, van Leendes GJLH, Wijkstra H, Debruyne FMJ, de la Rosette JJMCH. Threedimensional contrast-enhanced power Doppler ultrasonography and conventional examination methods: the value of diagnostic predictors of prostate cancer: BJU International 2000; 86: 58.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Dobrowolski ZF, Jaszczynski J, Drewniak T, Habrat W, Kusionowicz J. Vascular angiographic asymmetry on threedimensional transrectal power Doppler ultrasonography in patients with organ-confined prostate cancer: BJU International 2002; 89: 614.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Eckersley RJ, Sedelaar JPM, Blomley MJ, Wijkstra H, deSouza NM, Cosgrove DO, de la Rosette JJ. Quantitative microbubble enhanced transrectal ultrasound as a tool for monitoring hormonal treatment of prostate carcinoma: Prostate 2002; 51: 256.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sedelaar JPM, Aarnink RG, van Leenders GJLH, Beerlage HP, Debruyne FM, Wijkstra H, de la Rosette JJ. The application of three-dimensional contrast-enhanced ultrasound to measure volume of affected tissue after HIFU treatment for localized prostate cancer: Eur Urology 2000; 37: 559.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba-shi, Chiba, 260-8670, Japan

    Masahiko Inahara, Hiroyoshi Suzuki, Hiroshi Nakamachi, Naoto Kamiya, Masaki Shimbo, Akira Komiya, Takeshi Ueda, Tomohiko Ichikawa, Koichiro Akakura & Haruo Ito

Authors
  1. Masahiko Inahara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hiroyoshi Suzuki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hiroshi Nakamachi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Naoto Kamiya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Masaki Shimbo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Akira Komiya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Takeshi Ueda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Tomohiko Ichikawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Koichiro Akakura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Haruo Ito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hiroyoshi Suzuki.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Inahara, M., Suzuki, H., Nakamachi, H. et al. Clinical evaluation of transrectal power Doppler imaging in the detection of prostate cancer. Int Urol Nephrol 36, 175–180 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:UROL.0000034664.39784.33

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:UROL.0000034664.39784.33

Search

Navigation