Korean J Urol.  2013 Oct;54(10):666-670.

Are Hypoechoic Lesions on Transrectal Ultrasonography a Marker for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer?

• Noh TI
• Shin YS
• Shim JS
• Yoon JH
• Kim JH
• Bae JH
• Moon DG
• Park JY

Abstract

PURPOSE
To investigate the relationship of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) findings with the pathological characteristics of prostate cancer (PCa).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study was conducted retrospectively by analyzing the data for 970 patients who underwent prostate biopsies. Gleason scores and other clinical variables were compared between PCa patients with and without hypoechoic lesions on TRUS.
RESULTS
Of the 970 patients, PCa was diagnosed in 291 (30%). Of these, high-grade PCa (Gleason score of 7 or more) was diagnosed in 190 (65%). The cancer detection rate was higher in patients with hypoechoic lesions (43.9%) than in those without hypoechoic lesions (21.4%, p<0.001). High-grade PCa was detected more often in patients with hypoechoic lesions than in those without hypoechoic lesions (p<0.001). Independent predictors for high-grade PCa by logistic regression analysis included hypoechoic lesions on TRUS and abnormal digital rectal examination findings.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients with PCa who had hypoechoic lesions on TRUS had more aggressive pathological disease than did those without lesions. Therefore, hypoechoic lesions on TRUS could be a marker for clinically significant PCa.

Keyword

Clinical marker; Prostate neoplasms; Ultrasonography

MeSH Terms

Biomarkers
Biopsy
Digital Rectal Examination
Humans
Logistic Models
Passive Cutaneous Anaphylaxis
Prostate
Prostatic Neoplasms
Retrospective Studies

Reference

1. Watanabe H, Igari D, Tanahasi Y, Harada K, Saito M. Development and application of new equipment for transrectal ultrasonography. J Clin Ultrasound. 1974; 2:91–98.

2. Smith JA Jr. Transrectal ultrasonography for the detection and staging of carcinoma of the prostate. J Clin Ultrasound. 1996; 24:455–461.

3. Langer JE. The current role of transrectal ultrasonography in the evaluation of prostate carcinoma. Semin Roentgenol. 1999; 34:284–294.

4. Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Aus G, Bergdahl S, Khatami A, Lodding P, et al. Mortality results from the Goteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010; 11:725–732.

5. Hall RR. Screening and early detection of prostate cancer will decrease morbidity and mortality from prostate cancer: the argument against. Eur Urol. 1996; 29:Suppl 2. 24–26.

6. Applewhite JC, Matlaga BR, McCullough DL, Hall MC. Transrectal ultrasound and biopsy in the early diagnosis of prostate cancer. Cancer Control. 2001; 8:141–150.

7. Hou AH, Swanson D, Barqawi AB. Modalities for imaging of prostate cancer. Adv Urol. 2009; 818065.

8. Sano F, Terao H, Kawahara T, Miyoshi Y, Sasaki T, Noguchi K, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography of the prostate: various imaging findings that indicate prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2011; 107:1404–1410.

9. Nishida S, Kinoshita H, Mishima T, Kurokawa H, Sakaida N, Matsuda T. Prostate cancer detection by prebiopsy 3.0-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Urol. 2011; 18:653–658.

10. 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; 3:13–20.

11. 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; 101:685–690.

12. Abu Farsakh MG, Abu Farsakh HA. Serum prostate-specific antigen, radiologic findings and Gleason score in prostate biopsies in Jordan. Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Ther. 2008; 1:171–174.

13. Wolf JS Jr, Shinohara K, Carroll PR, Narayan P. Combined role of transrectal ultrasonography, Gleason score, and prostate-specific antigen in predicting organ-confined prostate cancer. Urology. 1993; 42:131–137.

14. Smith RP, Malkowicz SB, Whittington R, VanArsdalen K, Tochner Z, Wein AJ. Identification of clinically significant prostate cancer by prostate-specific antigen screening. Arch Intern Med. 2004; 164:1227–1230.

15. Etzioni R, Penson DF, Legler JM, di Tommaso D, Boer R, Gann PH, et al. Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specific antigen screening: lessons from U.S. prostate cancer incidence trends. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002; 94:981–990.

16. Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R, Carroll PR, Wirth M, Grimm MO, et al. The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2011; 60:291–303.

17. Newton MR, Phillips S, Chang SS, Clark PE, Cookson MS, Davis R, et al. Smaller prostate size predicts high grade prostate cancer at final pathology. J Urol. 2010; 184:930–937.

18. Xie SW, Li FH, Li HL, Du J, Xia JG, Fang H, et al. Value of contrast-enhanced sonography with micro flow imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. J Clin Ultrasound. 2011; 39:371–377.

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

20. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Stamey TA. Ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the palpably abnormal prostate. J Urol. 1989; 142:66–70.

21. Loch T, Eppelmann U, Lehmann J, Wullich B, Loch A, Stockle M. Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate: random sextant versus biopsies of sono-morphologically suspicious lesions. World J Urol. 2004; 22:357–360.

22. Sperandeo G, Sperandeo M, Morcaldi M, Caturelli E, Dimitri L, Camagna A. Transrectal ultrasonography for the early diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a new maneuver designed to improve the differentiation of malignant and benign lesions. J Urol. 2003; 169:607–610.

23. Flanigan RC, Catalona WJ, Richie JP, Ahmann FR, Hudson MA, Scardino PT, et al. Accuracy of digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasonography in localizing prostate cancer. J Urol. 1994; 152(5 Pt 1):1506–1509.

24. Chang JJ, Shinohara K, Bhargava V, Presti JC Jr. Prospective evaluation of lateral biopsies of the peripheral zone for prostate cancer detection. J Urol. 1998; 160(6 Pt 1):2111–2114.

25. 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):1520–1525.

26. Babaian RJ, Mettlin C, Kane R, Murphy GP, Lee F, Drago JR, et al. The relationship of prostate-specific antigen to digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasonography. Findings of the American Cancer Society National Prostate Cancer Detection Project. Cancer. 1992; 69:1195–1200.

27. Okotie OT, Roehl KA, Han M, Loeb S, Gashti SN, Catalona WJ. Characteristics of prostate cancer detected by digital rectal examination only. Urology. 2007; 70:1117–1120.

28. Gosselaar C, Roobol MJ, Roemeling S, van der Kwast TH, Schroder FH. Screening for prostate cancer at low PSA range: the impact of digital rectal examination on tumor incidence and tumor characteristics. Prostate. 2007; 67:154–161.

29. Gosselaar C, Roobol MJ, Roemeling S, Schroder FH. The role of the digital rectal examination in subsequent screening visits in the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC), Rotterdam. Eur Urol. 2008; 54:581–588.