Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Prostate Cancer: A Comprehensive Perspective pp 473–486Cite as

The Role of Ultrasonography

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 2952 Accesses

Abstract

The main diagnostic tools used to look for evidence of prostate cancer include digital rectal examination (DRE), serum concentration of prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided biopsy [2]. In this chapter, we review the clinical role for TRUS and recent ultrasonography developments in the detection and diagnosis of prostate disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   229.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60(5):277–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Scardino PT, Weaver R, Hudson MA. Early detection of prostate cancer. Hum Pathol. 1992;23(3):211–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Takahashi H, Ouchi T. The ultrasonic diagnosis in the field of urology. Proc Jpn Soc Ultrasonics Med. 1963;3:7.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Langer JE. The current role of transrectal ultrasonography in the evaluation of prostate carcinoma. Semin Roentgenol. 1999;34(4):284–94.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Watanabe H, Igari D, Tanahasi Y, Harada K, Saito M. Development and application of new equipment for transrectal ultrasonography. J Clin Ultrasound. 1974;2(2):91–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Rifkin MD. Ultrasound of the prostate–applications and indications. Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 1991;121(9):282–91.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Beerlage HP. Alternative therapies for localized prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep. 2003;4(3):216–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Frauscher F, Gradl J, Pallwein L. Prostate ultrasound – for urologists only? Cancer Imaging. 2005;5(Spec No A):S76–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kranse R, Beemsterboer P, Rietbergen J, Habbema D, Hugosson J, Schroder FH. Predictors for biopsy outcome in the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer (Rotterdam region). Prostate. 1999;39(4):316–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Littrup PJ, Bailey SE. Prostate cancer: the role of transrectal ultrasound and its impact on cancer detection and management. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000;38(1):87–113.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lee F, Torp-Pedersen ST, Siders DB, Littrup PJ, McLeary RD. Transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis and staging of prostatic carcinoma. Radiology. 1989;170(3 Pt 1):609–15.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol. 1989;142(1):71–4; discussion 74–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Presti Jr JC, Chang JJ, Bhargava V, Shinohara K. The optimal systematic prostate biopsy scheme should include 8 rather than 6 biopsies: results of a prospective clinical trial. J Urol. 2000;163(1):163–6; discussion 166–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gore JL, Shariat SF, Miles BJ, et al. Optimal combinations of systematic sextant and laterally directed biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2001;165(5):1554–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Stroumbakis N, Cookson MS, Reuter VE, Fair WR. Clinical significance of repeat sextant biopsies in prostate cancer patients. Urology. 1997;49(3A Suppl):113–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lane BR, Zippe CD, Abouassaly R, Schoenfield L, Magi-Galluzzi C, Jones JS. Saturation technique does not decrease cancer detection during followup after initial prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2008;179(5):1746–50; discussion 1750.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J, Myers L, Bachmann LM, Kleijnen J. Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Urol. 2006;175(5):1605–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically loca­lized disease. Eur Urol. 2010;59(1):61–74. Accessed on Jan 2011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Carroll P, Albertsen PC, Green K, et al. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) best practice policy. American Urological Association (AUA). Oncology (Williston Park). 2009;14(2):267–272, 277–268, 280 passim.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gosselaar C, Roobol MJ, Roemeling S, Wolters T, van Leenders GJ, Schroder FH. The value of an additional hypoechoic lesion-directed biopsy core for detecting prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2008;101(6):685–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Heijmink SW, van Moerkerk H, Kiemeney LA, Witjes JA, Frauscher F, Barentsz JO. A comparison of the diagnostic performance of systematic versus ultrasound-guided biopsies of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(4):927–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Durkan GC, Greene DR. Diagnostic dilemmas in detection of prostate cancer in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided needle biopsy of the prostate. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2000;3(1):13–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Huang Foen Chung JW, de Vries SH, Raaijmakers R, Postma R, Bosch JL, van Mastrigt R. Prostate volume ultrasonography: the influence of transabdominal versus transrectal approach, device type and operator. Eur Urol. 2004;46(3):352–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Stravodimos KG, Petrolekas A, Kapetanakis T, et al. TRUS versus transabdominal ultrasound as a predictor of enucleated adenoma weight in patients with BPH: a tool for standard preoperative work-up? Int Urol Nephrol. 2009;41(4):767–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ozden E, Gogus C, Kilic O, Yaman O, Ozdiler E. Analysis of suprapubic and transrectal measurements in assessment of prostate dimensions and volume: is transrectal ultrasonography really necessary for prostate measurements? Urol J. 2009;6(3):208–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Blanc M, Sacrini A, Avogadro A, et al. Prostatic volume: suprapubic versus transrectal ultrasonography in the control of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Radiol Med. 1998;95(3):182–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Ching CB, Moussa AS, Li J, Lane BR, Zippe C, Jones JS. Does transrectal ultrasound probe configuration really matter? End fire versus side fire probe prostate cancer detection rates. J Urol. 2009;181(5):2077–82; discussion 2082–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Karlsson G. The physics of ultrasound and some recent techniques used. In: Ukimura O, Gill IS, editors. Contemporary interventional ultrasonography in urology. London: Springer; 2009. p. 103–12.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Kossoff G. Basic physics and imaging characteristics of ultrasound. World J Surg. 2000;24(2):134–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Kremkau F. Ultrasound physics. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1991;17(4):411.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Coltrera MD. Ultrasound physics in a nutshell. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2010;43(6):1149–59, v.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Terris MK, Stamey TA. Determination of prostate volume by transrectal ultrasound. J Urol. 1991;145(5):984–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Loch AC, Bannowsky A, Baeurle L, et al. Technical and anatomical essentials for transrectal ultrasound of the prostate. World J Urol. 2007;25(4):361–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bates TS, Reynard JM, Peters TJ, Gingell JC. Determination of prostatic volume with transrectal ultrasound: a study of intra-observer and interobserver variation. J Urol. 1996;155(4):1299–300.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Kamoi K, Babaian RJ. Contemporary TRUS-guided prostate biopsy for screening and staging. In: Ukimura O, Gill IS, editors. Contemporary interventional ultrasonography in urology. London: Springer; 2009. p. 49–62.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Bangma CH, Hengeveld EJ, Niemer AQ, Schroder FH. Errors in transrectal ultrasonic planimetry of the prostate: computer simulation of volumetric errors applied to a screening population. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1995;21(1):11–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Cunha GR, Ricke W, Thomson A, et al. Hormonal, cellular, and molecular regulation of normal and neoplastic prostatic development. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2004;92(4):221–36.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Mong A, Bellah R. Imaging the pediatric prostate. Radiol Clin North Am. 2006;44(5):749–56, ix.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Walz J, Burnett AL, Costello AJ, et al. A critical analysis of the current knowledge of surgical anatomy related to optimization of cancer control and preservation of continence and erection in candidates for radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2010;57(2):179–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. McNeal JE. The zonal anatomy of the prostate. Prostate. 1981;2(1):35–49.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Wasserman NF. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: a review and ultrasound classification. Radiol Clin North Am. 2006;44(5):689–710, viii.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Chen ME, Johnston DA, Tang K, Babaian RJ, Troncoso P. Detailed mapping of prostate carcinoma foci: biopsy strategy implications. Cancer. 2000;89(8):1800–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Villers A, Steg A, Boccon-Gibod L. Anatomy of the prostate: review of the different models. Eur Urol. 1991;20(4):261–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Berry SJ, Coffey DS, Walsh PC, Ewing LL. The development of human benign prostatic hyperplasia with age. J Urol. 1984;132(3):474–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Hasegawa Y, Sakamoto N, Gotoh K. Relationship of ultrasonic and histologic findings in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Prostate. 1996;28(2):111–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Sohlberg OE, Chetner M, Ploch N, Brawer MK. Prostatic abscess after transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy. J Urol. 1991;146(2):420–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Ishikawa M, Okabe H, Oya T, et al. Midline prostatic cysts in healthy men: incidence and transabdominal sonographic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181(6):1669–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Hamper UM, Epstein JI, Sheth S, Walsh PC, Sanders RC. Cystic lesions of the prostate gland. A sonographic – pathologic correlation. J Ultrasound Med. 1990;9(7):395–402.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Galosi AB, Montironi R, Fabiani A, Lacetera V, Galle G, Muzzonigro G. Cystic lesions of the prostate gland: an ultrasound classification with pathological correlation. J Urol. 2009;181(2):647–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Sauvain JL, Palascak P, Bourscheid D, et al. Value of power Doppler and 3D vascular sonography as a method for diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2003;44(1):21–30; discussion 30–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Norberg M, Egevad L, Holmberg L, Sparen P, Norlen BJ, Busch C. The sextant protocol for ultrasound-guided core biopsies of the prostate underestimates the presence of cancer. Urology. 1997;50(4):562–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Hammerer P, Huland H. Systematic sextant biopsies in 651 patients referred for prostate evaluation. J Urol. 1994;151(1):99–102.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Ellis WJ, Chetner MP, Preston SD, Brawer MK. Diagnosis of prostatic carcinoma: the yield of serum prostate specific antigen, digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasonography. J Urol. 1994;152(5 Pt 1):1520–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Ukimura O, Troncoso P, Ramirez EI, Babaian RJ. Prostate cancer staging: correlation between ultrasound determined tumor contact length and pathologically confirmed extraprostatic extension. J Urol. 1998;159(4):1251–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Hricak H, Choyke PL, Eberhardt SC, Leibel SA, Scardino PT. Imaging prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary perspective. Radiology. 2007;243(1):28–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Ohori M, Shinohara K, Wheeler TM, et al. Ultrasonic detection of non-palpable seminal vesicle invasion: a clinicopathological study. Br J Urol. 1993;72(5 Pt 2):799–808.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Neumaier CE, Martinoli C, Derchi LE, Silvestri E, Rosenberg I. Normal prostate gland: examination with color Doppler US. Radiology. 1995;196(2):453–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Wilson NM, Masoud AM, Barsoum HB, Refaat MM, Moustafa MI, Kamal TA. Correlation of power Doppler with microvessel density in assessing prostate needle biopsy. Clin Radiol. 2004;59(10):946–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Mitterberger M, Pallwein L, Frauscher F. Prostate carcinoma: conventional imaging techniques – gray-scale, color, and power Doppler ultrasound. In: De La Rosette JJ, editor. Imaging in oncological urology. London: Springer; 2009. p. 221–8.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  60. Rifkin MD, Sudakoff GS, Alexander AA. Prostate: techniques, results, and potential applications of color Doppler US scanning. Radiology. 1993;186(2):509–13.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Remzi M, Dobrovits M, Reissigl A, et al. Can power Doppler enhanced transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy improve prostate cancer detection on first and repeat prostate biopsy? Eur Urol. 2004;46(4):451–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Lavoipierre AM, Snow RM, Frydenberg M, et al. Prostatic cancer: role of color Doppler imaging in transrectal sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171(1):205–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Cho JY, Kim SH, Lee SE. Peripheral hypoechoic lesions of the prostate: evaluation with color and power Doppler ultrasound. Eur Urol. 2000;37(4):443–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Halpern EJ, Strup SE. Using gray-scale and color and power Doppler sonography to detect prostatic cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174(3):623–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Augustin H, Graefen M, Palisaar J, et al. Prognostic significance of visible lesions on transrectal ultrasound in impalpable prostate cancers: implications for staging. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(15):2860–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Burns PN, Wilson SR. Microbubble contrast for radiological imaging: 1. Principles. Ultrasound Q. 2006;22(1):5–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. de Jong N. Mechanical index. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2002;3(1):73–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Linden RA, Trabulsi EJ, Forsberg F, Gittens PR, Gomella LG, Halpern EJ. Contrast enhanced ultrasound flash replenishment method for directed prostate biopsies. J Urol. 2007;178(6):2354–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Futterer JJ, Barentsz J, Heijmijnk ST. Imaging modalities for prostate cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2009;9(7):923–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Aigner F, Pallwein L, Mitterberger M, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography using cadence-contrast pulse sequencing technology for targeted biopsy of the prostate. BJU Int. 2009;103(4):458–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Mitterberger M, Pinggera GM, Horninger W, et al. Comparison of contrast enhanced color Doppler targeted biopsy to conventional systematic biopsy: impact on Gleason score. J Urol. 2007;178(2):464–8; discussion 468.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Frauscher F, Klauser A, Volgger H, et al. Comparison of contrast enhanced color Doppler targeted biopsy with conventional systematic biopsy: impact on prostate cancer detection. J Urol. 2002;167(4):1648–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Pelzer A, Bektic J, Berger AP, et al. Prostate cancer detection in men with prostate specific antigen 4 to 10 ng/ml using a combined approach of contrast enhanced color Doppler targeted and systematic biopsy. J Urol. 2005;173(6):1926–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Halpern EJ, Ramey JR, Strup SE, Frauscher F, McCue P, Gomella LG. Detection of prostate carcinoma with contrast-enhanced sonography using intermittent harmonic imaging. Cancer. 2005;104(11):2373–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Mitterberger M, Horninger W, Pelzer A, et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing contrast-enhanced targeted versus systematic ultrasound guided biopsies: impact on prostate cancer detection. Prostate. 2007;67(14):1537–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Mitterberger MJ, Aigner F, Horninger W, et al. Comparative efficiency of contrast-enhanced colour Doppler ultrasound targeted versus systematic biopsy for prostate cancer detection. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(12):2791–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Ophir J, Cespedes I, Ponnekanti H, Yazdi Y, Li X. Elastography: a quantitative method for imaging the elasticity of biological tissues. Ultrason Imaging. 1991;13(2):111–34.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Pallwein L, Mitterberger M, Struve P, et al. Real-time elastography for detecting prostate cancer: preliminary experience. BJU Int. 2007;100(1):42–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Salomon G, Kollerman J, Thederan I, et al. Evaluation of prostate cancer detection with ultrasound real-time elastography: a comparison with step section pathological analysis after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2008;54(6):1354–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Pallwein L, Mitterberger M, Pinggera G, et al. Sonoelastography of the prostate: comparison with systematic biopsy findings in 492 patients. Eur J Radiol. 2008;65(2):304–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Nelson ED, Slotoroff CB, Gomella LG, Halpern EJ. Targeted biopsy of the prostate: the impact of color Doppler imaging and elastography on prostate cancer detection and Gleason score. Urology. 2007;70(6):1136–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Eggert T, Khaled W, Wenske S, Ermert H, Noldus J. Impact of elastography in clinical diagnosis of prostate cancer. A comparison of cancer detection between B-mode sonography and elastography-guided 10-core biopsies. Stellenwert der Elastographie in der klinischen Diagnostik des lokalisierten Prostatakarzinoms. Vergleich von Detektionsraten der B-Modus-Sonographie und der elastographieunterstutzten systematischen 10fach-Biopsie. Urologe A. 2008;47(9):1212–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Braeckman J, Autier P, Garbar C, et al. Computer-aided ultrasonography (HistoScanning): a novel technology for locating and characterizing prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2008;101(3):293–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Braeckman J, Autier P, Soviany C, et al. The accuracy of transrectal ultrasonography supplemented with computer-aided ultrasonography for detecting small prostate cancers. BJU Int. 2008;102(11):1560–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Centre Rotterdam, ‘s Gravendijkwal 230, Room H-187, Rotterdam, 3015 CE, The Netherlands

    Suzanne van den Heuvel M.D.

  2. Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Centre Rotterdam, ‘s Gravendijkwal 230, Room Hs 402, Rotterdam, 3015 CE, The Netherlands

    Paul C. M. S. Verhagen

  3. Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, ‘s Gravendijkwal 230, Room H-1093, Rotterdam, 3015 CE, The Netherlands

    Chris H. Bangma M.D., Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Suzanne van den Heuvel M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul C. M. S. Verhagen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chris H. Bangma M.D., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suzanne van den Heuvel M.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. New York Presbyterian Hospital, Brady Urologic Health Center, Weill Cornell Medical Center, East 68th Street 525, New York, 10021, New York, USA

    Ashutosh Tewari

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van den Heuvel, S., Verhagen, P.C.M.S., Bangma, C.H. (2013). The Role of Ultrasonography. In: Tewari, A. (eds) Prostate Cancer: A Comprehensive Perspective. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2864-9_39

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2864-9_39

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-2863-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-2864-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation