Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jan;15(1):E11-E16.
doi: 10.5489/cuaj.6712.

Comparison of micro-ultrasound and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: A multicenter, prospective analysis

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Comparison of micro-ultrasound and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: A multicenter, prospective analysis

Laurence Klotz et al. Can Urol Assoc J. 2021 Jan.
Free PMC article

Erratum in

  • Erratum.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] Can Urol Assoc J. 2022 Feb;16(2):E111. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.7787. Can Urol Assoc J. 2022. PMID: 35133269 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

Abstract

Introduction: High-resolution micro-ultrasound has the capability of imaging prostate cancer based on detecting alterations in ductal anatomy, analogous to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). This technology has the potential advantages of relatively low cost, simplicity, and accessibility compared to mpMRI. This multicenter, prospective registry aims to compare the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) of mpMRI with high-resolution micro-ultrasound imaging for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Methods: We included 1040 subjects at 11 sites in seven countries who had prior mpMRI and underwent ExactVu micro-ultrasound-guided biopsy. Biopsies were taken from both mpMRI targets (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] >3 and micro-ultrasound targets (Prostate Risk Identification using Micro-ultrasound [PRIMUS] >3). Systematic biopsies (up to 14 cores) were also performed. Various strategies were used for mpMRI target sampling, including cognitive fusion with micro-ultrasound, separate software-fusion systems, and software-fusion using the micro-ultrasound FusionVu system. Clinically significant cancer was those with Gleason grade group ≥2.

Results: Overall, 39.5% were positive for clinically significant prostate cancer. Micro-ultrasound and mpMRI sensitivity was 94% vs. 90%, respectively (p=0.03), and NPV was 85% vs. 77%, respectively. Specificities of micro-ultrasound and MRI were both 22%, with similar PPV (44% vs. 43%). This represents the initial experience with the technology at most of the participating sites and, therefore, incorporates a learning curve. Number of cores, diagnostic strategy, blinding to MRI results, and experience varied between sites.

Conclusions: In this initial multicenter registry, micro-ultrasound had comparable or higher sensitivity for clinically significant prostate cancer compared to mpMRI, with similar specificity. Micro-ultrasound is a low-cost, single-session option for prostate screening and targeted biopsy. Further larger-scale studies are required for validation of these findings.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: The authors report no competing personal or financial interests related to this work.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
Forest plot demonstrating site-level sensitivity difference between micro-ultrasound (US) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Sensitivity difference overall was +3.6%, indicating superior sensitivity for micro-US (p=0.03). CI: confidence interval.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Forest plot demonstrating site-level specificity difference between micro-ultrasound (US) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Specificity difference was +0.3% overall, indicating non-inferiority for micro-US (p<0.01), however, significant variability was noted between sites depending on biopsy population and user targeting habits. CI: confidence interval.

Comment in

  • Urological Oncology: Prostate Cancer.
    Taneja SS. Taneja SS. J Urol. 2021 Feb;205(2):629-631. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001501. Epub 2020 Nov 17. J Urol. 2021. PMID: 33200643 No abstract available.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. National Cancer Institute. [Accessed June 1, 2020];Cancer stat facts: Prostate cancer. Available at: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [Accessed June 1, 2020];U.S. cancer statistics data visualizations tool. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/uscs/dataviz/index.htm.
    1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Prostate cancer. 2019. Version 4. Available at: https://www.nccn.org.
    1. Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, et al. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): A prospective, multicenter, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;2045:1–10. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1767–77. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993. - DOI - PubMed