Comparison of micro-ultrasound and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: A multicenter, prospective analysis

Authors

  • Laurence Klotz University of Toronto
  • Giovanni Lughezzani Insituto Clinicao Humanitas, Rozzano, Italy
  • Davide Maffei Instituto Clinico Humanitas, Rozzano, Italy
  • Andrea Sánchez Urología Clínica, Clínica IMQ Zorrotzaurre
  • José Gregorio Pereira Urología Clínica, Clínica IMQ Zorrotzaurre
  • Frédéric Staerman Polyclinique Reims-Bezannes, Bezannes
  • Hannes Cash Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin
  • Ferdinand Luger Ordensklinikum Linz, Barmherzige Schwestern Linz
  • Laurent Lopez Groupe Urologie Saint-Augustin, Bordeaux
  • Rafael Sanchez-Salas Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris
  • Rob Abouassally Glickman Urological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland
  • Neal D. Shore Carolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, SC
  • Gregg Eure Urology of Virginia, Virginia Beach

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.6712

Keywords:

Prostate cancer, Imaging, High resolution micro ultrasound, MRI, Pi-RADS

Abstract

Introduction: High-resolution micro-ultrasound has the capability of imaging prostate cancer based on detecting alterations in ductal anatomy, analogous to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). This technology has the potential advantages of relatively low cost, simplicity, and accessibility compared to mpMRI. This multicenter, prospective registry aims to compare the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) of mpMRI with high-resolution micro-ultrasound imaging for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Methods: We included 1040 subjects at 11 sites in seven countries who had prior mpMRI and underwent ExactVu micro-ultrasound-guided biopsy. Biopsies were taken from both mpMRI targets (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] >3 and micro-ultrasound targets (Prostate Risk Identification using Microultrasound [PRIMUS] >3). Systematic biopsies (up to 14 cores) were also performed. Various strategies were used for mpMRI target sampling, including cognitive fusion with micro-ultrasound, separate software-fusion systems, and software-fusion using the micro-ultrasound FusionVu system. Clinically significant cancer was those with Gleason grade group ≥2.

Results: Overall, 39.5% were positive for clinically significant prostate cancer. Micro-ultrasound and mpMRI sensitivity was 94% vs. 90%, respectively (p=0.03), and NPV was 85% vs. 77%, respectively. Specificities of micro-ultrasound and MRI were both 22%, with similar PPV (44% vs. 43%). This represents the initial experience with the technology at most of the participating sites and, therefore, incorporates a learning curve. Number of cores, diagnostic strategy, blinding to MRI results, and experience varied between sites.

Conclusions: In this initial multicenter registry, micro-ultrasound had comparable or higher sensitivity for clinically significant prostate cancer compared to mpMRI, with similar specificity. Microultrasound is a low-cost, single-session option for prostate screening and targeted biopsy. Further larger-scale studies are required for validation of these findings.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2020-07-17

How to Cite

Klotz, L., Lughezzani, G., Maffei, D., Sánchez, A., Pereira, J. G., Staerman, F., Cash, H., Luger, F., Lopez, L., Sanchez-Salas, R., Abouassally, R., Shore, N. D., & Eure, G. (2020). Comparison of micro-ultrasound and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: A multicenter, prospective analysis. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 15(1), E11–6. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.6712

Issue

Vol. 15 No. 1 (2021): CUAJ January

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.