Application value of ultrasonic shear wave elastography and ultrasonography in transrectal prostate biopsy
10.3760/cma.j.cn431274-20240819-01284
- VernacularTitle:超声剪切波弹性成像及超声造影术在经直肠前列腺穿刺活检中的应用价值
- Author:
Gaowa SHAREN
1
;
Jun ZHANG
Author Information
1. 内蒙古医科大学附属医院超声医学科，呼和浩特 010110
- Keywords:
Prostatic diseases;
Biopsy, needle;
Elasticity imaging techniques;
Contrast-enhanced ultrasound
- From:
Journal of Chinese Physician
2024;26(10):1451-1455
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To study the value of ultrasonic shear wave elastography (SWE) and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in transrectal prostate biopsy.Methods:Clinical data of 100 patients who underwent transrectal prostate biopsy in The Affiliated Hospital of Inner Mongolia Medical University from May 2017 to May 2019 were retrospectively analyzed, and they were divided into SWE group (54 cases) and CEUS group (46 cases) according to puncture methods. Swe-assisted transrectal prostate biopsy was performed in the SWE group and CEUS group. The detection of prostate cancer by SWE and CEUS was recorded, and the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the two groups were compared with the biopsy results as the gold standard.Results:SWE detected 35 cases of prostate cancer and 19 cases of prostate hyperplasia, and pathologically confirmed 38 cases of prostate cancer and 16 cases of prostate hyperplasia in SWE group, with a total of 451 needles, with an average of (8.35±1.67)needles/case. There were 28 cases of prostate cancer and 18 cases of prostatic hyperplasia detected by CEUS, 36 cases of prostate cancer and 10 cases of prostatic hyperplasia confirmed by pathology in CEUS group, with a total of 462 needles, with an average of (10.04±1.33)needles/case. There was significant difference in puncture times between the two methods ( P<0.05). There were no significant differences in age, body mass index and pathological results between 2 groups (all P>0.05). There were no significant differences in positive detection rate, sensitivity and specificity between the two groups (all P>0.05). The accuracy of SWE group was significantly higher than CEUS group, and the difference was statistically significant ( P<0.05). The Emean and Emax levels in patients with prostate cancer in SWE group were significantly higher than those in patients with prostate hyperplasia ( P<0.05). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed that the area under the curve (AUC) for Emean diagnosis of prostate cancer was 0.752 (95% CI=0.611-0.894, P=0.007), and the optimal cut-off value was 47.005 kPa. Conclusions:Both SWE and CEUS assisted transrectal prostate biopsy can obtain higher positive rates of prostate cancer. SWE assisted transrectal prostate biopsy can provide quantitative basis for predicting prostate cancer and improve diagnostic accuracy.
