Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 1858–1866 | Cite as

Stiffness of benign and malignant prostate tissue measured by shear-wave elastography: a preliminary study

  • Olivier Rouvière
  • Christelle Melodelima
  • Au Hoang Dinh
  • Flavie Bratan
  • Gaele Pagnoux
  • Thomas Sanzalone
  • Sébastien Crouzet
  • Marc Colombel
  • Florence Mège-Lechevallier
  • Rémi Souchon
Urogenital

Abstract

Objectives

To measure benign and malignant prostate tissue stiffness using shear-wave elastography (SWE).

Methods

Thirty consecutive patients underwent transrectal SWE in the axial and sagittal planes before prostatectomy. After reviewing prostatectomy specimens, two radiologists measured stiffness in regions corresponding to cancers, lateral and median benign peripheral zone (PZ) and benign transition zone (TZ).

Results

Cancers were stiffer than benign PZ and TZ. All tissue classes were stiffer on sagittal than on axial imaging, in TZ than in PZ, and in median PZ than in lateral PZ. At multivariate analysis, the nature of tissue (benign or malignant; P < 0.00001), the imaging plane (axial or sagittal; P < 0.00001) and the location within the prostate (TZ, median PZ or lateral PZ; P = 0.0065) significantly and independently influenced tissue stiffness. On axial images, the thresholds maximising the Youden index in TZ, lateral PZ and median PZ were respectively 62 kPa, 33 kPa and 49 kPa. On sagittal images, the thresholds were 76 kPa, 50 kPa and 72 kPa, respectively.

Conclusions

SWE can distinguish prostate malignant and benign tissues. Tissue stiffness is influenced by the imaging plane and the location within the gland.

Key Points

Prostate cancers were stiffer than the benign peripheral zone

All tissue classes were stiffer on sagittal than on axial imaging

All tissue classes were stiffer in the transition zone than in the peripheral zone

All tissue classes were stiffer in the median than in the lateral peripheral zone

Taking into account imaging plane and zonal anatomy can improve cancer detection

Keywords

Prostatic neoplasms Elasticity imaging techniques Ultrasound Shear waves Prostatectomy 

Abbreviations

SWE

Shear-wave elastography

PZ

Peripheral zone

TZ

Transition zone

BPH

Benign prostate hyperplasia

Notes

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Olivier Rouvière. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. This study has received funding by a grant from the French National Cancer Institute (Institut National du Cancer; Cartographix project—PAIR Prostate funding programme). One of the authors has significant statistical expertise. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study. No study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported. Methodology: prospective, diagnostic or prognostic study, performed at one institution.

References

  1. 1.
    Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Briers E, et al. (2016) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Available at: https://uroweb.org/individual-guidelines/oncology-guidelines
  2. 2.
    Rubin R (2015) Researchers look to MRI and biomarkers to help improve detection of aggressive prostate cancers. JAMA 313:654–656CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bratan F, Niaf E, Melodelima C et al (2013) Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study. Eur Radiol 23:2019–2029CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Valerio M, Donaldson I, Emberton M et al (2015) Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy: a systematic review. Eur Urol 68:8–19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V et al (2011) Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol 186:1818–1824CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Hove A, Savoie PH, Maurin C et al (2014) Comparison of image-guided targeted biopsies versus systematic randomized biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic literature review of well-designed studies. World J Urol 32:847–858CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Postema A, Mischi M, de la Rosette J, Wijkstra H (2015) Multiparametric ultrasound in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review. World J Urol 33:1651–1659CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bercoff J, Tanter M, Fink M (2004) Supersonic shear imaging: a new technique for soft tissue elasticity mapping. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 51:396–409CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shiina T, Nightingale KR, Palmeri ML et al (2015) WFUMB guidelines and recommendations for clinical use of ultrasound elastography: Part 1: basic principles and terminology. Ultrasound Med Biol 41:1126–1147CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Franchi-Abella S, Elie C, Correas JM (2013) Ultrasound elastography: advantages, limitations and artefacts of the different techniques from a study on a phantom. Diagn Interv Imaging 94:497–501CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zheng XZ, Ji P, Mao HW et al (2011) A novel approach to assessing changes in prostate stiffness with age using virtual touch tissue quantification. J Ultrasound Med 30:387–390CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barr RG, Memo R, Schaub CR (2012) Shear wave ultrasound elastography of the prostate: initial results. Ultrasound Q 28:13–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ahmad S, Cao R, Varghese T, Bidaut L, Nabi G (2013) Transrectal quantitative shear wave elastography in the detection and characterisation of prostate cancer. Surg Endosc 27:3280–3287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Woo S, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH (2014) Shear wave elastography for detection of prostate cancer: a preliminary study. Korean J Radiol 15:346–355CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Correas JM, Tissier AM, Khairoune A et al (2015) Prostate cancer: diagnostic performance of real-time shear-wave elastography. Radiology 275:280–289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Woo S, Kim SY, Lee MS, Cho JY, Kim SH (2015) Shear wave elastography assessment in the prostate: an intraobserver reproducibility study. Clin Imaging 39:484–487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Samaratunga H, Montironi R, True L et al (2011) International society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling. Mod Pathol 24:6–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boehm K, Budaus L, Tennstedt P et al (2015) Prediction of significant prostate cancer at prostate biopsy and per core detection rate of targeted and systematic biopsies using real-time shear wave elastography. Urol Int 95:189–196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boehm K, Salomon G, Beyer B et al (2015) Shear wave elastography for localization of prostate cancer lesions and assessment of elasticity thresholds: implications for targeted biopsies and active surveillance protocols. J Urol 193:794–800CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Varghese T, Ophir J, Krouskop TA (2000) Nonlinear stress-strain relationships in tissue and their effect on the contrast-to-noise ratio in elastograms. Ultrasound Med Biol 26:839–851CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barr RG, Zhang Z (2012) Effects of precompression on elasticity imaging of the breast: development of a clinically useful semiquantitative method of precompression assessment. J Ultrasound Med 31:895–902CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kruse SA, Smith JA, Lawrence AJ et al (2000) Tissue characterization using magnetic resonance elastography: preliminary results. Phys Med Biol 45:1579–1590CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gennisson JL, Deffieux T, Mace E, Montaldo G, Fink M, Tanter M (2010) Viscoelastic and anisotropic mechanical properties of in vivo muscle tissue assessed by supersonic shear imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 36:789–801CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gibbs P, Tozer DJ, Liney GP, Turnbull LW (2001) Comparison of quantitative T2 mapping and diffusion-weighted imaging in the normal and pathologic prostate. Magn Reson Med 46:1054–1058CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gibbs P, Pickles MD, Turnbull LW (2006) Diffusion imaging of the prostate at 3.0 tesla. Investig Radiol 41:185–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Park SY, Kim CK, Park BK, Ha SY, Kwon GY, Kim B (2014) Diffusion-tensor MRI at 3 T: differentiation of central gland prostate cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:W254–W262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sinha S, Sinha U (2004) In vivo diffusion tensor imaging of the human prostate. Magn Reson Med 52:530–537CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chesnais AL, Niaf E, Bratan F et al (2013) Differentiation of transitional zone prostate cancer from benign hyperplasia nodules: evaluation of discriminant criteria at multiparametric MRI. Clin Radiol 68:e323–e330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hoeks CM, Hambrock T, Yakar D et al (2013) Transition zone prostate cancer: detection and localization with 3-T multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology 266:207–217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olivier Rouvière
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Christelle Melodelima
    • 5
    • 6
  • Au Hoang Dinh
    • 4
  • Flavie Bratan
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Gaele Pagnoux
    • 1
  • Thomas Sanzalone
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Sébastien Crouzet
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 7
  • Marc Colombel
    • 2
    • 3
    • 7
  • Florence Mège-Lechevallier
    • 8
  • Rémi Souchon
    • 4
  1. 1.Hospices Civils de Lyon, Department of Urinary and Vascular RadiologyHôpital Edouard HerriotLyonFrance
  2. 2.Université de LyonLyonFrance
  3. 3.Université Lyon 1, Faculté de Médecine Lyon EstLyonFrance
  4. 4.Inserm, U1032, LabTauLyonFrance
  5. 5.Université Joseph Fourier, Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, BP 53GrenobleFrance
  6. 6.CNRS, UMR 5553, BP 53GrenobleFrance
  7. 7.Hospices Civils de Lyon, Department of UrologyHôpital Edouard HerriotLyonFrance
  8. 8.Hospices Civils de Lyon, Department of PathologyHôpital Edouard HerriotLyonFrance

Personalised recommendations