The role of multiparametric ultrasound in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer

• Published in: World journal of urology 2023-03, Vol.41 (3), p.663-671
• Main Authors: Jung, Nathan, DiNatale, Renzo G., Frankel, Jason, Koenig, Hannah, Ho, On, Flores, John Paul, Porter, Christopher
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biopsy; Clinical significance; Humans; Image-Guided Biopsy - methods; Lesions; Magnetic resonance imaging; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Nephrology; Oncology; Prostate - diagnostic imaging; Prostate - pathology; Prostate cancer; Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology; Retrospective Studies; Topic Paper; Ultrasonic imaging; Ultrasound; Urology
• ISSN: 1433-8726; 0724-4983; 1433-8726
• DOI: 10.1007/s00345-022-04122-z

Purpose Transrectal ultrasound (US) imaging is paramount to the successful completion of prostate biopsies. Certain US features have been associated with prostate cancer (PCa), but their utility remains controversial. We explored the role of multiparametric US (mpUS) in the detection of clinically significant PCa. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study to contrast the findings of prostate MRI and mpUS. Patients who underwent MRI, US and biopsy between 2015 and 2021 were included. Biopsies were performed using a systematic approach (12 cores), as well as with MRI (4 cores/lesion) and US (1 core/lesion) targeting. The US features analyzed consisted of: calcifications, hypoechoic lesions and power or color Doppler positivity. Gleason 3 + 4 or higher was used as to define true positives. Measures of diagnostic accuracy were calculated for the different imaging modalities. Results The final cohort included 74 patients, of which 24 (32.4%) had clinically significant PCa. The concordance between MRI and US was 63.5%. Seven individuals with discordant results had clinically significant PCa. MRI alone was more sensitive (87.5% vs 75%) but less specific (28% vs 32%) than US alone. An all-inclusive approach considering any suspicious US or MRI finding had a sensitivity of 95.8%. A more restrictive approach, targeting lesions noted in both US and MRI, yielded the highest specificity (50.0%) and accuracy (55.4%). Conclusion Biopsy targeting based on US findings can provide additional diagnostic information that may increase sensitivity or specificity. Additional research into this topic could open the door to a more personalized approach to prostate biopsy.