Search

Objectives: To compare the accuracy of pre-surgical prostate size measurements using mpMRI and USWE with imaging-based 3D-printed patient-specific whole-mount moulds facilitated histopathology, and to assess whether size assessment varies between clinically significant and non-significant cancerous lesions including their locations in different zones of the prostate. Methods: The study population included 202 men with clinically localised prostate cancer opting for radical surgery derived from two prospective studies. Protocol-based imaging data was used for measurement of size of prostate cancer in clinically localised disease using MRI (N = 106; USWE (N = 96). Forty-eight men overlapped between two studies and formed the validation cohort. The primary outcome of this study was to assess the accuracy of pre-surgical prostate cancerous size measurements using mpMRI and USWE with imaging-based 3D-printed patient-specific whole-mount moulds facilitated histopathology as a reference standard. Independent-samples T-tests were used for the continuous variables and a nonparametric Mann–Whitney U test for independent samples was applied to examine the distribution and median differences between mpMRI and USWE groups. Results: A significant number of men had underestimation of prostate cancer using both mpMRI (82.1%; 87/106) and USWE (64.6%; 62/96). On average, tumour size was underestimated by a median size of 7 mm in mpMRI, and 1 mm in USWE. There were 327 cancerous lesions (153 with mpMRI and 174 for USWE). mpMRI and USWE underestimated the majority of cancerous lesions (108/153; 70.6%) and (88/174; 50.6%), respectively. Validation cohort data confirmed these findings MRI had a nearly 20% higher underestimation rate than USWE (χ2 (1, N = 327) = 13.580, p = 0.001); especially in the mid and apical level of the gland. Clinically non-significant cancers were underestimated in significantly higher numbers in comparison to clinically significant cancers. Conclusions: Size measurement of prostate cancers on preoperative imaging utilising maximum linear extent technique, underestimated the extent of cancer. Further research is needed to confirm our observations using different sequences, methods and approaches for cancer size measurement. Key points: The study assessed size of prostate cancer on MRI and ultrasound shear wave elastography (USWE) and compared with size on microscopic examination (histopathology) after radical prostatectomy. In comparison to histopathology, there was significant underestimation of prostate cancer size by imaging using MRI and USWE. Specific message is for men opting for focal treatment of prostate cancer [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To correlate quantitative tissue stiffness measurements obtained by transrectal ultrasound shear wave elastography (USWE) with PI-RADS scoring of multiparametric magnetic imaging resonance (mpMRI) using Gleason scores of radical prostatectomy as a reference standard. Patients and methods: 196 men with localised prostate cancer were prospectively recruited into the study and had quantitative prostate tissue stiffness measurements in kilopascals (kPa) using transrectal USWE prior to radical prostatectomy. PI-RADS scores of mpMRI were also obtained in all the men. Imaging and histopathology of radical prostatectomy specimen were oriented to each other using patient specific customised 3D moulds to guide histopathology grossing of radical prostatectomy specimens. All included patients had confirmed PCa on TRUS-guided biopsies, had both USWE and mpMRI imaging data, and underwent radical prostatectomy. Chi-square test with 95% confidence interval was used to assess the difference between Gleason score (GS) of radical prostatectomy and PI-RADS classification, as well as GS of radical prostatectomy and stiffness (in Kpa) using USWE. The correlation coefficient (r) was calculated in order to investigate relation between PI-RADS classification and tissue stiffness in kPa. Results: There was a statistically significant correlation between USWE-measured tissue stiffness and GS (χ2 (2, N = 196) = 23.577, p < 0.001). Also, there was a statistically significant correlation between Gleason score and PI-RADS score (χ2 (2, N = 196) = 12.838, p = 0.002). High PIRADS on MRI and high stiffness on USWE (> 100 kPa) detected more than 80% and 90% high risk prostate cancer disease. However, a weak correlation coefficient of 0.231 was observed between PI-RADS score and level of tissue stiffness measured in kPa. Conclusion: Quantitative USWE and mpMRI using PI-RADS classification provide a good degree of prediction for Gleason score of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Stiffer lesions on ultrasound showed a weak correlation with PI-RADS scoring system. USWE could be used to target suspected prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]