European Radiology

, Volume 28, Issue 5, pp 1949–1960 | Cite as

A direct comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection and prediction of aggressiveness

  • Alexander D. J. Baur
  • Julia Schwabe
  • Julian Rogasch
  • Andreas Maxeiner
  • Tobias Penzkofer
  • Carsten Stephan
  • Marc Rudl
  • Bernd Hamm
  • Ernst-Michael Jung
  • Thom Fischer
Urogenital

Abstract

Introduction

Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) analyse tissue vascularization. We evaluated if CEUS can provide comparable information as DCE-MRI for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) and prediction of its aggressiveness.

Material and methods

A post-hoc evaluation of 92 patients was performed. In each patient CEUS and DCE-MRI parameters of the most suspicious lesion identified on MRI were analysed. The predictive values for discrimination between benign lesions, low-/intermediate- and high-grade PCa were evaluated. Results of targeted biopsy served as reference standard (benign lesions, n=51; low- and intermediate-grade PCa [Gleason grade group 1 and 2], n=22; high-grade PCa [≥ Gleason grade group 3], n=19).

Results

In peripheral zone lesions of all tested CEUS parameters only time to peak (TTPCEUS) showed significant differences between benign lesions and PCa (AUC 0.65). Of all tested DCE-MRI parameters, rate constant (Kep) was the best discriminator of high-grade PCa in the whole prostate (AUC 0.83) and in peripheral zone lesions (AUC 0.89).

Conclusion

DCE-MRI showed a superior performance for detection of PCa and prediction of its aggressiveness. CEUS and DCE-MRI performed better in peripheral zone lesions than in transition zone lesions.

Key Points

• DCE-MRI gathers information about vascularization and capillary permeability characteristics of tissues.

• DCE-MRI can detect PCa and predict its aggressiveness.

• CEUS also gathers information about vascularization of tissues.

• For detection of PCa and prediction of aggressiveness DCE-MRI performed superiorly.

• Both imaging techniques performed better in peripheral zone lesions.

Keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging Transrectal ultrasound Prostate cancer Detection Contrast media 

Abbreviations

AT

Arrival time

CEUS

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound

DCE-MRI

Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging

DRE

Digital rectal examination

DWI

Diffusion-weighted imaging

FT

Fall time

iAUC

Initial area under the curve

Kep

Rate constant

Ktrans

Transfer constant

mpMRI

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging

mTTl

Mean transit time local

PE

Peak enhancement

PEI

Peak enhancement intensity

PI-RADS

Prostate imaging reporting and data system

PSA

Prostate-specific antigen

RT

Rise time

T2WI

T2-weighted imaging

TRUS

Transrectal ultrasound

TTPCEUS, DCE

Time to peak

Ve

Extravascular extracellular space

WiAUC

Wash-in area under the curve

WiPI

Wash-in perfusion index

WiR

Wash-in rate

W_In

Wash-in

WoR

Wash-out rate

W_Out

Wash-out

WiWoAUC

Wash-in and wash-out area under the curve

WoAUC

Wash-out area under the curve

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Alexander D.J. Baur.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: Alexander Baur has received payments as a speaker for Bayer Healthcare. Bernd Hamm has worked as a consultant for Toshiba Medical and received research grants for the department of radiology from Toshiba Medical, Siemens, and Bracco Imaging. Ernst Michael Jung has received payments as a speaker for Bracco Imaging. Thom Fischer has received payments as a speaker for Toshiba Medical and Bracco Imaging.

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

The institutional review board (Ethikkommission der Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin) approved the study (EA1/283/14).

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

Patients included in the final evaluation of the study at hand (n=92) represent a subgroup of a larger cohort of patients (n=159) who were included in a prospective study evaluating the value of contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in patients with suspicion for prostate cancer. Results of this study are not yet published. However, since the initial submission of our manuscript at European Radiology, a manuscript titled “Clinical value of contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and quantitative perfusion analysis in patients with suspicion for prostate cancer” has been submitted to Ultraschall in der Medizin - European Journal of Ultrasound.

The study at hand focuses on the comparison of CEUS and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI DCE. In addition, different analytical approaches and statistical test were performed including a separate evaluation of peripheral and transition zone lesions of the prostate. Thus, results from both publications are based at least in parts on overlapping databases are substantially different and will substantially add to each other. In the manuscript we clearly state that it contains results from parts of an overlapping database with a yet unpublished study.

Methodology

retrospective

diagnostic or prognostic study

performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Shakir NA, Siddiqui MM, George AK et al (2017) Should Hypoechoic Lesions on Transrectal Ultrasound Be Sampled During Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsy? Urology 105:113–117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Welch HG, Albertsen PC (2009) Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment after the introduction of prostate-specific antigen screening: 1986-2005. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:1325–1329CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389:815–822Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ukimura O, Coleman JA, de la Taille A et al (2013) Contemporary role of systematic prostate biopsies: indications, techniques, and implications for patient care. Eur Urol 63:214–230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Washington SL, Bonham M, Whitson JM, Cowan JE, Carroll PR (2012) Transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy does not reliably identify dominant cancer location in men with low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 110:50–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    American College of Radiology (2015) MR Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.0. American College of Radiology, Reston, Virginia. Available via http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/PIRADS/. Accessed 01 Oct 2017
  7. 7.
    Cornelis F, Rigou G, Le Bras Y et al (2013) Real-time contrast-enhanced transrectal US-guided prostate biopsy: diagnostic accuracy in men with previously negative biopsy results and positive MR imaging findings. Radiology 269:159–166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Durmus T, Stephan C, Grigoryev M et al (2013) Detection of prostate cancer by real-time MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy: 3T MRI and state of the art sonography. Rofo 185:428–433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 68:438–450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B et al (2015) Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 313:390–397CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S et al (2014) Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol 65:809–815CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Erbersdobler A, Isbarn H, Dix K et al (2010) Prognostic value of microvessel density in prostate cancer: a tissue microarray study. World J Urol 28:687–692CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Padhani AR, Harvey CJ, Cosgrove DO (2005) Angiogenesis imaging in the management of prostate cancer. Nat Clin Pract Urol 2:596–607CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Oto A, Yang C, Kayhan A et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation of quantitative MR parameters with Gleason score and tumor angiogenesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:1382–1390CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Halpern EJ, Ramey JR, Strup SE, Frauscher F, McCue P, Gomella LG (2005) Detection of prostate carcinoma with contrast-enhanced sonography using intermittent harmonic imaging. Cancer 104:2373–2383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jung EM, Wiggermann P, Greis C et al (2012) First results of endocavity evaluation of the microvascularization of malignant prostate tumors using contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) including perfusion analysis: first results. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc 52:167–177PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maxeiner A, Stephan C, Durmus T, Slowinski T, Cash H, Fischer T (2015) Added Value of Multiparametric Ultrasonography in Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Ultrasonography Fusion-guided Biopsy of the Prostate in Patients With Suspicion for Prostate Cancer. Urology 86:108–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Starobinets O, Kurhanewicz J, Noworolski SM (2017) Improved multiparametric MRI discrimination between low-risk prostate cancer and benign tissues in a small cohort of 5alpha-reductase inhibitor treated individuals as compared with an untreated cohort. NMR Biomed 30Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746–757CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Piscaglia F, Nolsoe C, Dietrich CF et al (2012) The EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations on the Clinical Practice of Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS): update 2011 on non-hepatic applications. Ultraschall Med 33:33–59CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Franiel T, Hamm B, Hricak H (2011) Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and pharmacokinetic models in prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 21:616–626CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL, Committee IG (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29:1228–1242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB et al (2016) The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System. Am J Surg Pathol 40:244–252PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bender R, Lange S (2001) Adjusting for multiple testing--when and how? J Clin Epidemiol 54:343–349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gulani V, Calamante F, Shellock FG, Kanal E, Reeder SB, International Society for Magnetic Resonance in M (2017) Gadolinium deposition in the brain: summary of evidence and recommendations. Lancet Neurol 16:564–570CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Delgado Oliva F, Arlandis Guzman S, Bonillo Garcia M, Broseta Rico E, Boronat Tormo F (2016) Diagnostic performance of power doppler and ultrasound contrast agents in early imaging-based diagnosis of organ-confined prostate cancer: Is it possible to spare cores with contrast-guided biopsy? Eur J Radiol 85:1778–1785CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    van Niekerk CG, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, van der Laak JA, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA (2013) Microvascularity in transition zone prostate tumors resembles normal prostatic tissue. Prostate 73:467–475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Postema AW, Frinking PJ, Smeenge M et al (2016) Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound parametric imaging for the detection of prostate cancer. BJU Int 117:598–603CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hansford BG, Peng Y, Jiang Y et al (2015) Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging Curve-type Analysis: Is It Helpful in the Differentiation of Prostate Cancer from Healthy Peripheral Zone? Radiology 275:448–457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Isebaert S, De Keyzer F, Haustermans K et al (2012) Evaluation of semi-quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI parameters for prostate cancer in correlation to whole-mount histopathology. Eur J Radiol 81:e217–e222CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vos EK, Litjens GJ, Kobus T et al (2013) Assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. Eur Urol 64:448–455CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Morel DR, Schwieger I, Hohn L et al (2000) Human pharmacokinetics and safety evaluation of SonoVue, a new contrast agent for ultrasound imaging. Invest Radiol 35:80–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Aime S, Caravan P (2009) Biodistribution of gadolinium-based contrast agents, including gadolinium deposition. J Magn Reson Imaging 30:1259–1267CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bellin MF, Van Der Molen AJ (2008) Extracellular gadolinium-based contrast media: an overview. Eur J Radiol 66:160–167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zink F, Kratzer W, Schmidt S et al (2016) Comparison of Two High-End Ultrasound Systems for Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Quantification of Mural Microvascularity in Crohn's Disease. Ultraschall Med 37:74–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Westhoff N, Siegel FP, Hausmann D et al (2017) Precision of MRI/ultrasound-fusion biopsy in prostate cancer diagnosis: an ex vivo comparison of alternative biopsy techniques on prostate phantoms. World J Urol 35:1015–1022CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander D. J. Baur
    • 1
  • Julia Schwabe
    • 2
  • Julian Rogasch
    • 3
  • Andreas Maxeiner
    • 4
  • Tobias Penzkofer
    • 1
  • Carsten Stephan
    • 4
    • 5
  • Marc Rudl
    • 5
    • 6
  • Bernd Hamm
    • 1
  • Ernst-Michael Jung
    • 7
  • Thom Fischer
    • 2
  1. 1.Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Klinik für StrahlenheilkundeBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Institut für RadiologieBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Klinik für NuklearmedizinBerlinGermany
  4. 4.Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Klinik für UrologieBerlinGermany
  5. 5.Berliner Forschungsinstitut für UrologieBerlinGermany
  6. 6.Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Institut für PathologieBerlinGermany
  7. 7.Universitätsklinikum Regensburg, Institut für RöntgendiagnostikRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations