Introduction: Published results of HistoScanning™ (HS) for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostics are inconsistent and their value remains unclear. We prospectively analyzed the detection rate and tumor volume concordance in PCa patients. Material and Methods: Two hundred and eighty-two patients with biopsy-proven PCa scheduled for radical prostatectomy (RP) were included. All patients underwent ultrasonographical examination by HS prior to surgery. HS was evaluated compared to RP specimen as to (1) the prediction of overall tumor volume and (2) accuracy of HS in detection of PCa lesions larger than 0.2/0.5 ml, separated for each sextant. For each sextant, receiver operating characteristic (ROC)-analysis and area under the curve were determined. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated and visualized in ROC-curves. Results: HS tends to underestimate volume of cancerous lesions, particularly larger lesions >8 ml. Using a 0.2 ml detection threshold, specificity and sensitivity of HS were between 29-68% and 46-78%. For a 0.5 ml detection threshold, sextant-specific specificity increased to 59-92% and sensitivity decreased to 16-54%. Stratification according to pre-operational PSA values did not improve performance characteristics of HS. Conclusions: Our results do not support a significant contribution of HS to PCa diagnostics.

Keywords:
Prostate cancer, Diagnostic, Ultrasound, HistoScanning
1.
Braeckman J, Autier P, Garbar C, Marichal MP, Soviany C, Nir R, et al: Computer-aided ultrasonography (HistoScanning): a novel technology for locating and characterizing prostate cancer. BJU Int 2008;101:293-298.
2.
Schiffmann J, Fischer J, Tennstedt P, Beyer B, Böhm K, Michl U, et al: Comparison of prostate cancer volume measured by HistoScanning™ and final histopathological results. World J Urol 2014;32:939-944.
3.
Radtke JP, Kuru TH, Boxler S, Alt CD, Popeneciu IV, Huettenbrink C, et al: Comparative analysis of transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guidance. J Urol 2015;193:87-94.
4.
Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E, Schröder FH, Parkinson R, Barentsz JO, et al: Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol 2014;66:22-29.
5.
Salomon G, Drews N, Autier P, Beckmann A, Heinzer H, Hansen J, et al: Incremental detection rate of prostate cancer by real-time elastography targeted biopsies in combination with a conventional 10-core biopsy in 1024 consecutive patients. BJU Int 2014;113:548-553.
6.
Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, Stamatakis L, Vourganti S, Nix J, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol 2013;64:713-719.
7.
Kuru TH, Roethke MC, Seidenader J, Simpfendörfer T, Boxler S, Alammar K, et al: Critical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy for detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 2013;190:1380-1386.
8.
Thompson JE, Moses D, Shnier R, Brenner P, Delprado W, Ponsky L, et al: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging guided diagnostic biopsy detects significant prostate cancer and could reduce unnecessary biopsies and over detection: a prospective study. J Urol 2014;192:67-74.
9.
Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, Amin MB, Chang SS, Egevad L, Epstein JI, et al: Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the prostate gland. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009;133:1568-1576.
10.
Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307-310.
11.
Lin LI: A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 1989;45:255-268.
12.
D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Cote K, Loffredo M, Schultz D, et al: Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma in the prostate specific antigen era. Cancer 2002;95:281-286.
13.
Braeckman J, Autier P, Soviany C, Nir R, Nir D, Michielsen D, et al: The accuracy of transrectal ultrasonography supplemented with computer-aided ultrasonography for detecting small prostate cancers. BJU Int 2008;102:1560-1565.
14.
Simmons LA, Autier P, Zát'ura F, Braeckman J, Peltier A, Romic I, et al: Detection, localisation and characterisation of prostate cancer by prostate HistoScanning(™). BJU Int 2012;110:28-35.
15.
Salomon G, Spethmann J, Beckmann A, Autier P, Moore C, Durner L, et al: Accuracy of HistoScanning™ for the prediction of a negative surgical margin in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2013;111:60-66.
16.
Javed S, Chadwick E, Edwards AA, Beveridge S, Laing R, Bott S, et al: Does prostate HistoScanning™ play a role in detecting prostate cancer in routine clinical practice? Results from three independent studies. BJU Int 2014;114:541-548.
17.
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al: ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746-757.
18.
Macek P, Barret E, Sanchez-Salas R, Galiano M, Rozet F, Ahallal Y, et al: Prostate histoscanning in clinically localized biopsy proven prostate cancer: an accuracy study. J Endourol 2014;28:371-376.
19.
Salomon G, Schiffmann J: Real-time elastography for the detection of prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 2014;15:392.
20.
Brock M, Roghmann F, Sonntag C, Sommerer F, Tian Z, Löppenberg B, et al: Fusion of magnetic resonance imaging and real-time elastography to visualize prostate cancer: a prospective analysis using whole mount sections after radical prostatectomy. Ultraschall Med 2015;36:355-361.
21.
De Coninck V, Braeckman J, Michielsen D: Prostate HistoScanning: a screening tool for prostate cancer? Int J Urol 2013;20:1184-1190.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
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.