Prostate cancer and the role of color Doppler US.

Kelly, Ian; Lees, WR; Rickards, D.

doi:10.1148/radiology.189.1.7690489

Cited by 163 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…CDUS may be helpful in differentiating prostate cancers from benign prostatic lesions by demonstrating vascularity of the lesion 5 and may be helpful in identifying an appropriate site for biopsy. 6 Some investigators, 6,7 however, indicated that increase in positive predictive value achieved was not sufficient. Most of these studies focused on the focal lesions in the peripheral portion of prostate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diffuse prostatic lesions: role of color Doppler and power Doppler ultrasonography.

Cho

Kim

Lee

1998

Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to assess the role of color Doppler ultrasonography and power Doppler ultrasonography in the identification of diffuse prostatic lesions. Forty male patients underwent gray scale transrectal ultrasonography, color and power Doppler sonography, and transrectal ultrasonographically guided biopsy. Transrectal ultrasonographically guided biopsy revealed cancer in 23 patients and benign lesions in 17 patients. Among the prostatic cancers 82.6% (19 of 23) showed increased flow signals, whereas 23.5% (four of 17) of benign lesions showed increased flow signals on color or power Doppler ultrasonography. If we consider increased flow signal on color or power Doppler sonography as a sign of a prostate cancer in diffuse prostatic lesions, these modalities have a sensitivity of 82.6%, specificity of 76.5%, and positive predictive value of 82.6%. On the basis of our study, we may conclude that color and power Doppler ultrasonography are useful in the identification of diffuse prostatic lesions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diffuse prostatic lesions: role of color Doppler and power Doppler ultrasonography.

Cho

Kim

Lee

1998

Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Contrast-enhancedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Its incidence has been increasing because of improvements in diagnostic testing, increasing life expectancy, and the presence of environmental carcinogens [1,2]. Although sonography has wisely been used for evaluating the prostate, many reports have shown the limitations of sonography for cancer detection based on its unsatisfactory sensitivity and variable accuracy [3][4][5][6][7][8].Over the past few years, microbubble contrast-enhanced sonography has been introduced as a promising tool that can improve prostate cancer detection. Halpern et al [1], in an early large study, showed significant improvement of the sensitivity from 38% on gray-scale and color or power Doppler sonography to 65% with contrast-enhanced (CE) sonography.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrast-Enhanced Sonography for Prostate Cancer Detection in Patients with Indeterminate Clinical Findings

Kim

et al. 2006

American Journal of Roentgenology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

G e n i t o u r i n a r y I m a g i n g • O r i g i n a l R e s e a r c h Contrast-EnhancedOBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the usefulness of contrast-enhanced sonography for prostate cancer detection in patients with an indeterminate prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (4-10 ng/mL) and negative findings on digital rectal examination.SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Forty-eight patients underwent gray-scale, color Doppler, and contrast-enhanced sonography examinations and then sonographically guided biopsy. Contrast-enhanced sonography was performed using Levovist at a mechanical index of 1.1-1.4. The performances of the three methods for cancer detection were compared according to biopsy site and patient.RESULTS. Sensitivity by biopsy site was greater on contrast-enhanced sonography (68%) than on gray-scale (39%) and color Doppler (41%) sonography (p ≤ 0.05), whereas the specificity and overall accuracy by biopsy site (82% and 77% for gray-scale sonography, 84% and 79% for color Doppler sonography, and 83% and 81% for contrast-enhanced sonography, respectively) were not different for the three methods (p > 0.05). The concordance score for sonography and biopsy results by patient was not different for gray-scale (6.4 ± 1.8), color Doppler (6.3 ± 0.6), and contrast-enhanced sonography (6.5 ± 0.7) (p = 0.281).CONCLUSION. Contrast-enhanced sonography could improve only the sensitivity for cancer detection in analysis by biopsy site but did not improve the overall performance of sonography in patients with an indeterminate PSA level and negative digital rectal examination. rostate cancer is a common malignant neoplasm in men. Its incidence has been increasing because of improvements in diagnostic testing, increasing life expectancy, and the presence of environmental carcinogens [1,2]. Although sonography has wisely been used for evaluating the prostate, many reports have shown the limitations of sonography for cancer detection based on its unsatisfactory sensitivity and variable accuracy [3][4][5][6][7][8].Over the past few years, microbubble contrast-enhanced sonography has been introduced as a promising tool that can improve prostate cancer detection. Halpern et al. [1], in an early large study, showed significant improvement of the sensitivity from 38% on gray-scale and color or power Doppler sonography to 65% with contrast-enhanced (CE) sonography. Thereafter, several studies also reported an increased sensitivity of up to 86% [9][10][11][12]. However, the actual merit of sonographic contrast material may be in question because the performance of CE sonography varied in those studies. The variable degree of cancer risk in the study populations of previous studies may be largely responsible for the variable results of those studies; patients with a high PSA level and positive digital rectal examination may have a greater chance of having positive sonographic findings than those with an indeterminate risk of prostate cancer [9][10][11][12][13][14]. Therefore, if CE sonography were shown to have improved ...

show abstract

“…In biopsies of malignant tissue, no significant differences in microvasculature parameters were noted between high and normal CD flow, yet biopsies with high CD flow had average Gleason score of 6.7 compared with only 5.9 for biopsies with normal CD flow (P Ͻ 0.025). Increased [1][2][3][4] However, regarding increased CD flow, there is considerable overlap between carcinoma and benign conditions, such as acute prostatitis. As of yet, the histologic basis for increased CD flow in the prostate has not been thoroughly examined.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%