Advertisement

Shear wave elastography assessment in the prostate: an intraobserver reproducibility study

  • Sungmin Woo
    Affiliations
    Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-744, Korea
    Search for articles by this author
  • Sang Youn Kim
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author. Department of Radiology, Genitourinary Section, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-744, Korea. Tel.: +82-2-2072-4897.
    Affiliations
    Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-744, Korea
    Search for articles by this author
  • Myoung Seok Lee
    Affiliations
    Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-744, Korea
    Search for articles by this author
  • Jeong Yeon Cho
    Affiliations
    Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-744, Korea

    Institute of Radiation Medicine and Kidney Research Institute, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul 110-744, Korea
    Search for articles by this author
  • Seung Hyup Kim
    Affiliations
    Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-744, Korea

    Institute of Radiation Medicine and Kidney Research Institute, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul 110-744, Korea
    Search for articles by this author
Published:November 21, 2014DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2014.11.013

      Abstract

      Purpose

      To assess the intraobserver reproducibility of shear wave elastography (SWE) in the prostate.

      Materials and methods

      This study was institutional review board approved with waiver of informed consent. Eighty men (mean age, 66.2±9.2 years) with suspected prostate cancer underwent SWE. Young modulus (kPa) was measured at 24 locations in the prostate (superficial and deep locations in paramedian and lateral aspects at the base, mid-gland, and apex levels). The intraobserver reproducibility of two repeated measurements was determined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and was compared among measurement location, prostate volume, age, and prostate-specific antigen level.

      Results

      The overall intraobserver reproducibility was excellent (ICC=0.876). In addition, intraobserver reproducibility was excellent for all specified subgroups according to location, prostate volume, and clinical variables (ICC=0.826–0.917). With regard to location, SWE measurements showed substantially higher ICC values in the mid-gland than in the base and apex, in the paramedian prostate than in the lateral prostate, and in superficial locations than in deeper locations. No substantial differences in ICC values were observed according to the prostate volume and clinical variables.

      Conclusion

      Intraobserver reproducibility of SWE measurements in the prostate gland was excellent. There was variability in the intraobserver reproducibility according to location within the prostate, and the operator should be aware of this and take extra caution when performing SWE in these areas.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Imaging
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Jemal A
        • Siegel R
        • Ward E
        • Hao Y
        • Xu J
        • Thun MJ
        Cancer statistics, 2009.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2009; 59: 225-249
        • Bill-Axelson A
        • Holmberg L
        • Ruutu M
        • Haggman M
        • Andersson SO
        • Bratell S
        • et al.
        Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2005; 352: 1977-1984
        • Nguyen CT
        • Kattan MW
        Formalized prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer: is it possible?.
        Asian J Androl. 2012; 14: 349-354
        • Catalona WJ
        • Smith DS
        • Ornstein DK
        Prostate cancer detection in men with serum PSA concentrations of 2.6 to 4.0 ng/mL and benign prostate examination. Enhancement of specificity with free PSA measurements.
        JAMA. 1997; 277: 1452-1455
        • Kelloff GJ
        • Choyke P
        • Coffey DS
        • Prostate Cancer Imaging Working G
        Challenges in clinical prostate cancer: role of imaging.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009; 192: 1455-1470
        • Singh H
        • Canto EI
        • Shariat SF
        • Kadmon D
        • Miles BJ
        • Wheeler TM
        • et al.
        Predictors of prostate cancer after initial negative systematic 12 core biopsy.
        J Urol. 2004; 171: 1850-1854
        • de la Taille A
        • Antiphon P
        • Salomon L
        • Cherfan M
        • Porcher R
        • Hoznek A
        • et al.
        Prospective evaluation of a 21-sample needle biopsy procedure designed to improve the prostate cancer detection rate.
        Urology. 2003; 61: 1181-1186
        • Eskew LA
        • Bare RL
        • McCullough DL
        Systematic 5 region prostate biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate.
        J Urol. 1997; 157 ([discussion −3]): 199-202
        • Aigner F
        • Pallwein L
        • Mitterberger M
        • Pinggera GM
        • Mikuz G
        • Horninger W
        • et al.
        Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography using cadence-contrast pulse sequencing technology for targeted biopsy of the prostate.
        BJU Int. 2009; 103: 458-463
        • Correas JM
        • Drakonakis E
        • Isidori AM
        • Helenon O
        • Pozza C
        • Cantisani V
        • et al.
        Update on ultrasound elastography: miscellanea. Prostate, testicle, musculo-skeletal.
        Eur J Radiol. 2013; 82: 1904-1912
        • Ophir J
        • Garra B
        • Kallel F
        • Konofagou E
        • Krouskop T
        • Righetti R
        • et al.
        Elastographic imaging.
        Ultrasound Med Biol. 2000; 26: S23-S29
        • Barr RG
        Sonographic breast elastography: a primer.
        J Ultrasound Med. 2012; 31: 773-783
        • Barr RG
        • Memo R
        • Schaub CR
        Shear wave ultrasound elastography of the prostate: initial results.
        Ultrasound Q. 2012; 28: 13-20
        • Ahmad S
        • Cao R
        • Varghese T
        • Bidaut L
        • Nabi G
        Transrectal quantitative shear wave elastography in the detection and characterisation of prostate cancer.
        Surg Endosc. 2013; 27: 3280-3287
        • Woo S
        • Kim SY
        • Cho JY
        • Kim SH
        Shear wave elastography for detection of prostate cancer: a preliminary study.
        Korean J Radiol. 2014; 15: 346-355
        • Arda K
        • Ciledag N
        • Aktas E
        • Aribas BK
        • Kose K
        Quantitative assessment of normal soft-tissue elasticity using shear-wave ultrasound elastography.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 197: 532-536
        • Correas JM
        • Tissier AM
        • Khairoune A
        • Khoury G
        • Eiss D
        • Helenon O
        Ultrasound elastography of the prostate: state of the art.
        Diagn Interv Imaging. 2013; 94: 551-560
        • Good DW
        • Stewart GD
        • Hammer S
        • Scanlan P
        • Shu W
        • Phipps S
        • et al.
        Elasticity as a biomarker for prostate cancer: a systematic review.
        BJU Int. 2014; 113: 523-534
        • Lee HH
        • Lee JY
        • Yu HS
        • Diaz RR
        • Ham WS
        • Rha KH
        • et al.
        Impact of bent distortion on accuracy of measurement during transrectal ultrasonography for prostatic imaging: a preliminary study.
        Urology. 2013; 81: 915-919
        • Yoon JH
        • Jung HK
        • Lee JT
        • Ko KH
        Shear-wave elastography in the diagnosis of solid breast masses: what leads to false-negative or false-positive results?.
        Eur Radiol. 2013; 23: 2432-2440
        • Park HY
        • Han KH
        • Yoon JH
        • Moon HJ
        • Kim MJ
        • Kim EK
        Intra-observer reproducibility and diagnostic performance of breast shear-wave elastography in Asian women.
        Ultrasound Med Biol. 2014; 40: 1058-1064
        • Nakamura J
        • Kojima M
        • Nakanouchi T
        • Okihara K
        • Ukimura O
        • Nakao M
        • et al.
        Significant changes in transrectal ultrasonic measurements of the prostate in relation to the degree of rectal wall distension.
        Ultrasound Med Biol. 2000; 26: 29-34
        • Ferraioli G
        • Tinelli C
        • Lissandrin R
        • Zicchetti M
        • Bernuzzi S
        • Salvaneschi L
        • et al.
        Ultrasound point shear wave elastography assessment of liver and spleen stiffness: effect of training on repeatability of measurements.
        Eur Radiol. 2014; 24: 1283-1289