Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 8/2017

Open Access 01-08-2017 | Urogenital

Multiparametric dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging of prostate cancer

Authors: Rogier R. Wildeboer, Arnoud W. Postema, Libertario Demi, Maarten P. J. Kuenen, Hessel Wijkstra, Massimo Mischi

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 8/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study is to improve the accuracy of dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US) for prostate cancer (PCa) localization by means of a multiparametric approach.

Materials and Methods

Thirteen different parameters related to either perfusion or dispersion were extracted pixel-by-pixel from 45 DCE-US recordings in 19 patients referred for radical prostatectomy. Multiparametric maps were retrospectively produced using a Gaussian mixture model algorithm. These were subsequently evaluated on their pixel-wise performance in classifying 43 benign and 42 malignant histopathologically confirmed regions of interest, using a prostate-based leave-one-out procedure.

Results

The combination of the spatiotemporal correlation (r), mean transit time (μ), curve skewness (κ), and peak time (PT) yielded an accuracy of 81% ± 11%, which was higher than the best performing single parameters: r (73%), μ (72%), and wash-in time (72%). The negative predictive value increased to 83% ± 16% from 70%, 69% and 67%, respectively. Pixel inclusion based on the confidence level boosted these measures to 90% with half of the pixels excluded, but without disregarding any prostate or region.

Conclusions

Our results suggest multiparametric DCE-US analysis might be a useful diagnostic tool for PCa, possibly supporting future targeting of biopsies or therapy. Application in other types of cancer can also be foreseen.

Key points

• DCE-US can be used to extract both perfusion and dispersion-related parameters.
• Multiparametric DCE-US performs better in detecting PCa than single-parametric DCE-US.
• Multiparametric DCE-US might become a useful tool for PCa localization.
Literature
1.
American Cancer Society (2015) Cancer Facts and Figures 2015. Am Cancer Soc
2.
Cooperberg MR, Lubeck DP, Meng MV et al (2004) The changing face of low-risk prostate cancer: trends in clinical presentation and primary management. J Clin Oncol 22:2141–2149CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
4.
5.
Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J et al (2014) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent—update 2013. Eur Urol 65:124–137CrossRefPubMed
6.
Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU et al (2013) Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 64:876–892CrossRefPubMed
7.
Loeb S, van den Heuvel S, Zhu X et al (2012) Infectious complications and hospital admissions after prostate biopsy in a european randomized trial. Eur Urol 61:1110–1114CrossRefPubMed
8.
Ukimura O, Coleman JA, de la Taille A et al (2013) Contemporary role of systematic prostate biopsies: indications, techniques, and implications for patient care. Eur Urol 63:214–230CrossRefPubMed
9.
van Hove A, Savoie P-H, 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 32:847–858CrossRefPubMed
10.
Heijmink SW, van Moerkerk H, Kiemeney LALM et al (2006) A comparison of the diagnostic performance of systematic versus ultrasound-guided biopsies of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 16:927–938CrossRefPubMed
11.
Ahmed HU, Moore C, Emberton M (2009) Minimally-invasive technologies in uro-oncology: the role of cryotherapy, HIFU and photodynamic therapy in whole gland and focal therapy of localised prostate cancer. Surg Oncol 18:219–232CrossRefPubMed
12.
Scheenen TWJ, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Fütterer JJ (2015) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer management: current status and future perspectives. Invest Radiol 50:594–600CrossRefPubMed
13.
de Rooij M, Hamoen EHJ, Fütterer JJ et al (2014) Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol 202:343–351CrossRef
14.
Loch AC, Bannowsky A, Baeurle L et al (2007) Technical and anatomical essentials for transrectal ultrasound of the prostate. World J Urol 25:361–366CrossRefPubMed
15.
Smeenge M, de la Rosette JJMCH, Wijkstra H (2012) Current status of transrectal ultrasound techniques in prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 22:297–302CrossRefPubMed
16.
Russo G, Mischi M, Scheepens W et al (2012) Angiogenesis in prostate cancer: onset, progression and imaging. BJU Int 110:794–808CrossRef
17.
18.
Brawer MK (1996) Quantitative microvessel density: a staging and prognostic marker for human prostatic carcinoma. Cancer 78:345–349CrossRefPubMed
19.
Halpern EJ, Strup SE (2000) Using gray-scale and color and power doppler sonography to detect prostatic cancer. Am J Roentgenol 174:623–627CrossRef
20.
Mitterberger MJ, Aigner F, Horninger W et al (2010) Comparative efficiency of contrast-enhanced colour Doppler ultrasound targeted versus systematic biopsy for prostate cancer detection. Eur Radiol 20:2791–2796CrossRefPubMed
21.
Cosgrove D (2003) Angiogenesis imaging–ultrasound. Br J Radiol 60:324–330
22.
Halpern EJ, McCue PA, Aksnes AK et al (2002) Contrast-enhanced US of the prostate with sonazoid: comparison with whole-mount prostatectomy specimens in 12 patients. Radiology 222:361–366CrossRefPubMed
23.
Matsumoto K, Nakagawa K, Hashiguchi A et al (2010) Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography of the prostate with Sonazoid. Jpn J Clin Oncol 40:1099–1104CrossRefPubMed
24.
Li Y, Tang J, Fei X, Gao Y (2013) Diagnostic performance of contrast enhanced ultrasound in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Acad Radiol 20:156–164CrossRefPubMed
25.
Delorme S, Knopp MV (1998) Non-invasive vascular imaging: assessing tumour vascularity. Eur Radiol 8:517–527CrossRefPubMed
26.
Trabulsi EJ, Sackett D, Gomella LG, Halpern EJ (2010) Enhanced transrectal ultrasound modalities in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Urology 76:1025–1033CrossRefPubMed
27.
Wink M, Frauscher F, Cosgrove D et al (2008) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and prostate cancer; a multicentre european research coordination project. Eur Urol 54:982–993CrossRefPubMed
28.
Halpern EJ, Verkh L, Forsberg F et al (2000) Initial experience with contrast-enhanced sonography of the prostate. Am J Roentgenol 174:1575–1580CrossRef
29.
Seitz M, Gratzke C, Schlenker B et al (2011) Contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasound (CE-TRUS) with cadence-contrast pulse sequence (CPS) technology for the identification of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 29:295–301CrossRef
30.
Qi T, Chen Y, Zhu Y et al (2014) Contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasonography for detection and localization of prostate index tumor: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. Urology 84:138–143CrossRefPubMed
31.
Postema AW, Frinking PJA, Smeenge M et al (2015) Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound parametric imaging for the detection of prostate cancer. BJU Int 117:598–603CrossRefPubMed
32.
Elie N, Kaliski A, Péronneau P et al (2007) Methodology for quantifying interactions between perfusion evaluated by DCE-US and hypoxia throughout tumor growth. Ultrasound Med Biol 33:549–560CrossRefPubMed
33.
Eckersley RJ, Sedelaar JP, Blomley MJK et al (2002) Quantitative microbubble enhanced transrectal ultrasound as a tool for monitoring hormonal treatment of prostate carcinoma. Prostate 51:256–267CrossRefPubMed
34.
Tang J, Yang J-C, Luo Y et al (2008) Enhancement characteristics of benign and malignant focal peripheral nodules in the peripheral zone of the prostate gland studied using contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasound. Clin Radiol 63:1086–1091CrossRefPubMed
35.
Qi TY, Chen YQ, Jiang J et al (2013) Contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasonography: Measurement of prostate cancer tumor size and correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens. Int J Urol 20:1085–1091CrossRefPubMed
36.
Eckersley RJ, Cosgrove DO, Blomley MJ, Hashimoto H (1998) Functional imaging of tissue response to bolus injection of ultrasound contrast agent. In: Ultrason. Symp. 1998. Proceedings., 1998 IEEE. IEEE, pp 1779–1782
37.
Kuenen MPJ, Mischi M, Wijkstra H (2011) Contrast-ultrasound diffusion imaging for localization of prostate cancer. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 30:1493–1502CrossRefPubMed
38.
Mischi M, Kuenen MPJ, Wijkstra H (2012) Angiogenesis imaging by spatiotemporal analysis of ultrasound contrast agent dispersion kinetics. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 59:621–629CrossRefPubMed
39.
Kuenen MPJ, Saidov TA, Wijkstra H et al (2013) Spatiotemporal correlation of ultrasound contrast agent dilution curves for angiogenesis localization by dispersion imaging. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 60:2665–2669CrossRefPubMed
40.
Clements R (2002) The role of transrectal ultrasound in diagnosing prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 3:194–200CrossRefPubMed
41.
Fawcett T (2006) An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognit Lett 27:861–874CrossRef
42.
43.
Chang R-F, Wu W-J, Moon WK et al (2003) Support vector machines for diagnosis of breast tumors on US images. Acad Radiol 10:189–197CrossRefPubMed
44.
Loch T, Leuschner I, Genberg C et al (1999) Artificial neural network analysis (ANNA) of prostatic transrectal ultrasound. Prostate 39:198–204CrossRefPubMed
45.
Acharya R, Ng EYK, Chang YH et al (2008) Computer-based identification of breast cancer using digitized mammograms. J Med Syst 32:499–507CrossRef
46.
47.
Montironi R, van der Kwast T, Boccon-Gibod L et al (2003) Handling and pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol 44:626–636CrossRefPubMed
48.
Schalk SG, Demi L, Smeenge M et al (2015) 4-D Spatiotemporal analysis of ultrasound contrast agent dispersion for prostate cancer localization : a feasibility study. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 62:839–851CrossRefPubMed
49.
Mischi M, Kalker A, Korsten HHM (2004) Moment method for the local density random walk model interpolation of ultrasound contrast agent dilution curves. In: Proc. 17th Int. EURASIP Conf. BIOSIGNAL 2004, Brno (Czech Rep.), Jun. 23–25. Citeseer, pp 33–35
50.
Fraley C, Raftery AE (2002) Model-based clustering, discriminant analysis, and density estimation. J Am Stat Assoc 97:611–631CrossRef
51.
Banfield JD, Raftery AE (1993) Model-based Gaussian and non-Gaussian clustering. Biometrics 49:803–821CrossRef
52.
Han SH, Ackerstaff E, Stoyanova R et al (2013) Gaussian mixture model-based classification of dynamic contrast enhanced MRI data for identifying diverse tumor microenvironments: preliminary results. NMR Biomed 26:519–532CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
53.
Grim J, Somol P, Haindl M, Daneš J (2009) Computer-aided evaluation of screening mammograms based on local texture models. Image Process IEEE Trans 18:765–773CrossRef
54.
Redner R, Walker H (1984) Mixture densities, maximum likelihood and the EM algorithm. SIAM Rev 26:195–239CrossRef
55.
Strouthos C, Lampaskis M, Sboros V et al (2010) Indicator dilution models for the quantification of microvascular blood flow with bolus administration of ultrasound contrast agents. Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control IEEE Trans 57:1296–1310CrossRef
56.
57.
Humphrey PA (2004) Gleason grading and prognostic factors in carcinoma of the prostate. Mod Pathol 17:292–306CrossRefPubMed
58.
Kryvenko ON, Epstein JI (2015) Changes in prostate cancer grading: Including a new patient-centric grading system. Prostate 76:427–433CrossRefPubMed
59.
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB et al (2016) The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 40:244–252PubMed
60.
Franiel T, Lüdemann L, Rudolph B et al (2008) Evaluation of normal prostate tissue, chronic prostatitis, and prostate cancer by quantitative perfusion analysis using a dynamic contrast-enhanced inversion-prepared dual-contrast gradient echo sequence. Invest Radiol 43:481–487CrossRefPubMed
61.
Atri M, Gertner MR, Haider MA et al (2009) Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for real-time monitoring of interstitial laser thermal therapy in the focal treatment of prostate cancer. Can Urol Assoc J 3:125–130CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
62.
van den Bos W, Bruin DM, Randen A et al (2016) MRI and contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging for evaluation of focal irreversible electroporation treatment: results from a phase I-II study in patients undergoing IRE followed by radical prostatectomy. Eur Radiol 26:2252–2560
63.
64.
Rouvière O, Glas L, Girouin N et al (2011) Prostate cancer ablation with transrectal high-intensity focused ultrasound: assessment of tissue destruction with contrast-enhanced US. Radiology 259:583–591CrossRefPubMed
65.
Crouzet S, Rouviere O, Martin X, Gelet A (2014) High-intensity focused ultrasound as focal therapy of prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 24:225–230CrossRefPubMed
66.
Nattkemper TW, Arnrich B, Lichte O et al (2005) Evaluation of radiological features for breast tumour classification in clinical screening with machine learning methods. Artif Intell Med 34:129–139CrossRefPubMed
67.
Jalalian A, Mashohor SBT, Mahmud HR et al (2013) Computer-aided detection/diagnosis of breast cancer in mammography and ultrasound: a review. Clin Imaging 37:420–426CrossRefPubMed
68.
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 33:1651–1659CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Multiparametric dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging of prostate cancer
Authors
Rogier R. Wildeboer
Arnoud W. Postema
Libertario Demi
Maarten P. J. Kuenen
Hessel Wijkstra
Massimo Mischi
Publication date
01-08-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 8/2017
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4693-8

Other articles of this Issue 8/2017

European Radiology 8/2017 Go to the issue

Neuro

Amide proton transfer imaging to discriminate between low- and high-grade gliomas: added value to apparent diffusion coefficient and relative cerebral blood volume

Chest

Ultralow dose CT for pulmonary nodule detection with chest x-ray equivalent dose – a prospective intra-individual comparative study

Magnetic Resonance

Assessment of tibial and common peroneal nerves in diabetic peripheral neuropathy by diffusion tensor imaging: a case control study

Musculoskeletal

Diagnostic accuracy of contemporary multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) for the detection of lumbar disc herniation

Oncology

Post-treatment changes of tumour perfusion parameters can help to predict survival in patients with high-grade astrocytoma

Ultrasound

Ultrasonography has a diagnostic value in the assessment of cervical radiculopathy: A prospective pilot study