Advertisement

Endorectal Ultrasound and Prostate Cancer

  • George P. Zacharopoulos
Chapter

Abstract

In the early days, the prostate was evaluated for cancer by a simple digital rectal examination, and a blind biopsy was performed in order to obtain a tissue diagnosis. The rapid evolution of the ultrasound technology offers a better way to evaluate the prostate, and biopsy techniques have been developed using ultrasound guidance only. Two ultrasound-guided methods are currently in use, the endorectal or transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and, in selected cases, the transperineal.

References

  1. 1.
    Engelbrecht MR, Barentsz JO, Jager GJ et al (2000) Prostate cancers tagging using imaging. BJU Int 86(Suppl 1):123–134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Onur R, Littrup PJ, Pontes JE, Bianco FJ Jr (2004) Contemporary impact of transrectal ultrasound lesions for prostate cancer detection. J Urol 172:512–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mitterberger M, Pinggera GM, Pallwein L et al (2007) The value of three-dimensional transrectal ultrasonography in staging prostate cancer. BJU Int 100:47–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morelli G, Pagni R, Mariani C et al (2011) Results of vardenafil mediated power Doppler ultrasound, contrast enhanced ultrasound and systematic random biopsies to detect prostate cancer. J Urol 185:2126–2131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smeenge M, de la Rosette JJ, Wijkstra H (2012) Current status of transrectal ultrasound techniques in prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 22(4):297–302. ReviewCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kapoor A, Kapoor A, Mahajan G et al (2011) Real-time elastography in the detection of prostate cancer in patients with raised PSA level. Ultrasound Med Biol 37:1374–1381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aigner F, Pallwein L, Junker D et al (2010) Value of real-time elastography targeted biopsy for prostate cancer detection in men with prostate specific antigen 1.25 ng/ml or greater and 4.00 ng/ml or less. J Urol 184:913–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Correas J, Khairoune A, Tissier A et al (2011) Trans-rectal quantitative shear wave elastography: application to prostate cancer: a feasibility study. Poster ECR, Radiol Congr.  https://doi.org/10.1594/ecr2011/C-1748
  9. 9.
    Barr R, Cosgrove D, Brock M et al (2017) WFUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography: Part 5. Prostate. Ultrasound Med Biol 43(1):27–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK et al (1989) Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 142:71–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eskew LA, Applewhite JC, McCullough DL (1999) Update of the 5 region prostate biopsy method: the durability of a decreased false negative rate of prostate biopsy. Proc Annu Meet Am Urol Assoc 1249:324Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rastinehad AR, Turkbey B, Salami SS et al (2014) Improving detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 191(6):1749–1754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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(4):390–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sankineni S, George AK, Brown AM et al (2015) Posterior subcapsular prostate cancer: identification with mpMRI and MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy. Abdom Imaging 40(7):2557–2565CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic UltrasoundHygeia HospitalMaroussiGreece

Personalised recommendations