Aim: To develop a new optical device (prostate optical device, POD) for assessment of prostate tissue stiffness and evaluate its sensitivity and specificity in prostate cancer detection. Patients and Methods: POD was tested in prostate phantoms and in patients with indications for prostate biopsy. Its sensitivity and specificity were compared to digital rectal examination (DRE) and transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS). Results: POD was able to identify stiffness differences on each prostate phantom. 45 patients were included in the study. Sensitivity of TRUS (40%) was significantly lower to POD (85.7%) and DRE (74.3%) (p = 0.000 and p = 0.003, respectively). There was no statistical difference between POD and DRE (p = 0.221). The combination of POD and DRE showed the highest sensitivity (88.6%), positive predictive value (81.6%), and negative predictive value (42.9%) among all diagnostic tests. Conclusions: POD identified prostatic stiffness differences with the same sensitivity of DRE performed by an experienced urologist providing an objective indication for prostate biopsy and early prostate cancer detection.

Keywords:
Prostate cancer, Diagnosis, Prostate optical device
1.
American Cancer Society: Cancer Facts and Figures 2010. Atlanta, American Cancer Society, 2010.
2.
Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al: EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 2011;59:61–71.
3.
Richie JP, Catalona WJ, Ahmann FR, et al: Effect of patient age on early detection of prostate cancer with serum prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination. Urology 1993;42:365–374.
4.
Holmstrom B, Johansson M, Bergh A, et al: Prostate-specific antigen for early detection of prostate cancer: longitudinal study. BMJ 2009;339:b35370.
5.
Spajic B, Eupic H, Tomas D, et al: The incidence of hyperechoic prostate cancer in transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy specimens. Urology 2007;70:734–737.
6.
Cornud F, Belin X, Piron D, et al: Color Doppler-guided prostate biopsies in 591 patients with an elevated serum PSA level: impact on Gleason score for nonpalpable lesions. Urology 1997;49:709–715.
7.
Cornud F, Hamida K, Flam T, et al: Endorectal color Doppler sonography and endorectal MR imaging features of nonpalpable prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175:1161–1168.
8.
Salomon G, Köllerman 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;54:1354–1362.
9.
Brock M, von Bodman C, Sommerer F, et al: Comparison of real-time elastography with grey-scale ultrasonography for detection of organ-confined prostate cancer and extracapsular extension: a prospective analysis using whole mount sections after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2011;108:E217–E222.
10.
Kapoor A, Mahajan G, Sidhu BS: Real-time elastography in the detection of prostate cancer in patients with raised PSA level. Ultrasound Med Biol 2011;37:1374–1381.
11.
Panteliou SD, Sunaric MM, Sarris J, et al: Design of a device for the objective assessment of the mechanical properties of the prostate gland. Mechanics 2000, International Conference on Role of Mesomechanics for the Development of Science and Technology, Xi’an, June 13–16, 2000.
12.
Tsai PS, Shah M: Shape from shading using linear approximation. Image Vision Comput J 1994;12:487–498.
13.
Cochlin DL, Ganatra RH, Griffiths DF: Elastography in the detection of prostatic cancer. Clin Radiol 2002;57:1014–1020.
14.
Catalona WJ, Richie JP, deKernion JB, et al: Comparison of digital rectal examination and serum prostate-specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer: results of a multicenter clinical trial of 6,630 men. J Urol 1994;151:1283–1290.
15.
Sarvazyan AP: Computerized palpation is more sensitive than human finger. 12th International Symposium on Biomedical Measurements and Instrumentation, Dubrovnik, 1998, pp 523–524.
16.
Omata S, Terunuma Y: New tactile sensor like the human hand and its applications. Sens Actuators 1992;35:9–15.
17.
Constantinou CE, Omata S: Analysis of the relative biomechanical effects of a1 and a2 antagonists in modifying the compliance of the prostate and micturition parameters of the hormonally manipulated male rat. Neurourol Urodyn 1996;15:85 –101.
18.
Nava A, Mazza E, Furrer M, et al: In vivo mechanical characterization of human liver. Med Image Anal 2008;12:203–216.
19.
Ahn B, Kim J: Measurement and characterization of soft tissue behavior with surface deformation and force response under large deformations. Med Image Anal 2010;14:138–148.
20.
Ahn B, Kim J, Lorenzo I, et al: Mechanical property characterization of prostate cancer using a minimally motorized indenter in an ex vivo indentation experiment. Urology 2010;76:1007–1011.
21.
Rosen J, Brown JD, De S, et al: Biomechanical properties of abdominal organs in vivo and postmortem under compression loads. J Biomech Eng 2008;130:1–17.
22.
Valtorta D, Mazza E: Dynamic measurement of soft tissue viscoelastic properties with a torsional resonator device. Med Image Anal 2005;9:481–490.
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
2012
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.