Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ultrasonography in prostate cancer: current roles and potential applications in radiorecurrent disease

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

Abstract

The use of ultrasound technology for prostate cancer imaging has evolved over many years. In order to fully appreciate today’s application of prostate ultrasound in the primary diagnostic setting as well as for radiorecurrent prostate cancer, it is helpful to understand the progression of this technology from its inception. This review begins with a brief history of the development of ultrasonography for the prostate. This is followed by a summary of the data evaluating ultrasound in the primary diagnosis of prostate cancer. Its application in the post-treatment setting is then addressed. Finally, several emerging technologies are discussed, including contrast-enhanced ultrasound, elastography and HistoScanning. These new modalities may hold promise for identifying incompletely ablated prostate tissue following radiation therapy or other ablative techniques.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Takahashi H, Ouchi T (1963) The ultrasonic diagnosis in the field of urology. Proc Jpn Soc Ultrason Med 3:7

    Google Scholar 

  2. Resnick MI (2003) Ultrasonography of the prostate and testes. J Ultrasound Med 22(9):869–877

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Watanabe H et al (1968) Diagnostic application of ultrasonotomography to the prostate. Nihon Hinyokika Gakkai Zasshi 59(4):273–279

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. King WW et al (1973) Current status of prostatic echography. JAMA 226(4):444–447

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Holm HH, Gammelgaard J (1981) Ultrasonically guided precise needle placement in the prostate and the seminal vesicles. J Urol 125(3):385–387

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hastak SM, Gammelgaard J, Holm HH (1982) Transrectal ultrasonic volume determination of the prostate–a preoperative and postoperative study. J Urol 127(6):1115–1118

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Torp-Pedersen S, Holm HH, Littrup PJ (1987) Transperineal I-125 seed implantation in prostate cancer guided by transrectal ultrasound. Prog Clin Biol Res 237:143–152

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Torp-Pedersen S et al (1985) Prostatic biopsy with the 21 gauge Surecut needle. A preliminary report of a new technique. Br J Urol 57(1):56–59

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Resnick MI (1988) Transrectal ultrasound guided versus digitally directed prostatic biopsy: a comparative study. J Urol 139(4):754–757

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Liddell HT et al (1986) Ultrasound versus digitally directed prostatic needle biopsy. J Urol 135(4):716–718

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Weaver RP, Noble MJ, Weigel JW (1991) Correlation of ultrasound guided and digitally directed transrectal biopsies of palpable prostatic abnormalities. J Urol 145(3):516–518

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Shen PF et al (2012) The results of transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Androl 14(2):310–315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Takenaka A et al (2008) A prospective randomized comparison of diagnostic efficacy between transperineal and transrectal 12-core prostate biopsy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 11(2):134–138

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Paul R et al (2004) Influence of transrectal ultrasound probe on prostate cancer detection in transrectal ultrasound-guided sextant biopsy of prostate. Urology 64(3):532–536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ching CB et al (2009) Does transrectal ultrasound probe configuration really matter? End fire versus side fire probe prostate cancer detection rates. J Urol 181(5): p. 2077–2082; discussion 2082–3

    Google Scholar 

  16. Raber M et al (2012) Does the transrectal ultrasound probe influence prostate cancer detection in patients undergoing an extended prostate biopsy scheme? Results of a large retrospective study. BJU Int 109(5):672–677

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rom M et al (2012) Prospective randomized multicenter study comparing prostate cancer detection rates of end-fire and side-fire transrectal ultrasound probe configuration. Urology 80(1):15–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Greenberg M et al (1981) Ultrasound of the prostate. Analysis of tissue texture and abnormalities. Radiology 141(3):757–762

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Dahnert WF et al (1986) Prostatic evaluation by transrectal sonography with histopathologic correlation: the echopenic appearance of early carcinoma. Radiology 158(1):97–102

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Dahnert WF et al (1986) The echogenic focus in prostatic sonograms, with xeroradiographic and histopathologic correlation. Radiology 159(1):95–100

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee F et al (1986) Prostatic evaluation by transrectal sonography: criteria for diagnosis of early carcinoma. Radiology 158(1):91–95

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hodge KK et al (1989) Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 142(1): 71–74; discussion 74–5

    Google Scholar 

  23. Seltzer MA et al (1996) Comparison of systematic sextant and lesion directed biopsies in prostate cancer detection. Urol Oncol 2(5):136–138

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Salo JO et al (1987) Echogenic structure of prostatic cancer imaged on radical prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 10(1):1–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Onur R et al (2004) Contemporary impact of transrectal ultrasound lesions for prostate cancer detection. J Urol 172(2):512–514

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Heijmink SW et al (2006) A comparison of the diagnostic performance of systematic versus ultrasound-guided biopsies of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 16(4):927–938

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Remzi M et al (2004) Can power Doppler enhanced transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy improve prostate cancer detection on first and repeat prostate biopsy? Eur Urol 46(4):451–456

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Parra RO, Wolf RM, Huben RP (1990) The use of transrectal ultrasound in the detection and evaluation of local pelvic recurrences after a radical urological pelvic operation. J Urol 144(3):707–709

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Foster LS et al (1993) The value of prostate specific antigen and transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy in detecting prostatic fossa recurrences following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 149(5):1024–1028

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Shekarriz B et al (1999) Vesicourethral anastomosis biopsy after radical prostatectomy: predictive value of prostate-specific antigen and pathologic stage. Urology 54(6):1044–1048

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Scattoni V et al (2003) Multiple vesico-urethral biopsies following radical prostatectomy: the predictive roles of TRUS, DRE, PSA and the pathological stage. Eur Urol 44(4):407–414

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Leventis AK, Shariat SF, Slawin KM (2001) Local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: correlation of US features with prostatic fossa biopsy findings. Radiology 219(2):432–439

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Kabalin JN et al (1989) Identification of residual cancer in the prostate following radiation therapy: role of transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy and prostate specific antigen. J Urol 142(2 Pt 1):326–331

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Crook J et al (1993) Clinical relevance of trans-rectal ultrasound, biopsy, and serum prostate-specific antigen following external beam radiotherapy for carcinoma of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 27(1):31–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Parivar F et al (1996) Detection of locally recurrent prostate cancer after cryosurgery: evaluation by transrectal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and three-dimensional proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Urology 48(4):594–599

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Salomon CG et al (1998) Prostate carcinoma: transrectal US after cryosurgical ablation. Radiology 206(2):533–538

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Rud E, Baco E, Eggesbo HB (2012) MRI and ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy using soft image fusion. Anticancer Res 32(8):3383–3389

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Sonn GA et al (2013) Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device. J Urol 189(1):86–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Watanabe M (1998) Color Doppler enhancement with contrast agents for the detection of prostatic cancer. Nihon Rinsho 56(4):1040–1044

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Halpern EJ et al (2000) Initial experience with contrast-enhanced sonography of the prostate. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174(6):1575–1580

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Halpern EJ et al (2012) Contrast enhanced transrectal ultrasound for the detection of prostate cancer: a randomized, double-blind trial of dutasteride pretreatment. J Urol 188(5):1739–1745

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Frauscher F et al (2001) Detection of prostate cancer with a microbubble ultrasound contrast agent. Lancet 357(9271):1849–1850

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Frauscher F et al (2002) Comparison of contrast enhanced color Doppler targeted biopsy with conventional systematic biopsy: impact on prostate cancer detection. J Urol 167(4):1648–1652

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Halpern EJ et al (2005) Detection of prostate carcinoma with contrast-enhanced sonography using intermittent harmonic imaging. Cancer 104(11):2373–2383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Linden RA et al (2007) Contrast enhanced ultrasound flash replenishment method for directed prostate biopsies. J Urol 178(6):2354–2358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Guo YF et al (2012) Value of contrast-enhanced sonographic micro flow imaging for prostate cancer detection with t-PSA level of 4–10 ng/mL. Eur J Radiol 81(11):3067–3071

    Google Scholar 

  47. Rouviere O et al (2011) Prostate cancer ablation with transrectal high-intensity focused ultrasound: assessment of tissue destruction with contrast-enhanced US. Radiology 259(2):583–591

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Barr RG, Memo R, Schaub CR (2012) Shear wave ultrasound elastography of the prostate: initial results. Ultrasound Q 28(1):13–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Cochlin DL, Ganatra RH, Griffiths DF (2002) Elastography in the detection of prostatic cancer. Clin Radiol 57(11):1014–1020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Konig K et al (2005) Initial experiences with real-time elastography guided biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 174(1):115–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Aboumarzouk OM et al (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of transrectal elastosonography (TRES) imaging for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int 110(10): p. 1414–1423; discussion 1423

    Google Scholar 

  52. Braeckman J et al (2008) Computer-aided ultrasonography (HistoScanning): a novel technology for locating and characterizing prostate cancer. BJU Int 101(3):293–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Braeckman J et al (2008) The accuracy of transrectal ultrasonography supplemented with computer-aided ultrasonography for detecting small prostate cancers. BJU Int 102(11):1560–1565

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Simmons LA et al (2012) Detection, localisation and characterisation of prostate cancer by prostate HistoScanning(TM). BJU Int 110(1):28–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors certify that there is no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Medical University of South Carolina, 96 Jonathan Lucas Street CSB 644, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA

    James S. Rosoff, Sandip M. Prasad & Stephen J. Savage

Authors
  1. James S. Rosoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sandip M. Prasad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephen J. Savage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James S. Rosoff.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rosoff, J.S., Prasad, S.M. & Savage, S.J. Ultrasonography in prostate cancer: current roles and potential applications in radiorecurrent disease. World J Urol 31, 1353–1359 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1080-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1080-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation