Ultrasound and advanced imaging techniques in prostate cancer diagnosis: A comparative study of mpMRI, TRUS, and PET/CT.

IF 1.7 3区 医学 Q3 INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION
Ying Dong, Peng Wang, Hua Geng, Yankun Liu, Enguo Wang
{"title":"Ultrasound and advanced imaging techniques in prostate cancer diagnosis: A comparative study of mpMRI, TRUS, and PET/CT.","authors":"Ying Dong, Peng Wang, Hua Geng, Yankun Liu, Enguo Wang","doi":"10.1177/08953996241304988","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to assess and compare the diagnostic performance of three advanced imaging modalities-multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT)-in detecting prostate cancer in patients with elevated PSA levels and abnormal DRE findings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on 150 male patients aged 50-75 years with elevated PSA and abnormal DRE. The diagnostic accuracy of each modality was assessed through sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC) to compare performance in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥ 7).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>MpMRI demonstrated the highest diagnostic performance, with a sensitivity of 90%, specificity of 85%, and AUC of 0.92, outperforming both TRUS (sensitivity 76%, specificity 78%, AUC 0.77) and PET/CT (sensitivity 82%, specificity 80%, AUC 0.81). MpMRI detected clinically significant tumors in 80% of cases. Although TRUS and PET/CT had similar detection rates for significant tumors, their overall accuracy was lower. Minor adverse events occurred in 5% of patients undergoing TRUS, while no significant complications were associated with mpMRI or PET/CT.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings suggest that mpMRI is the most reliable imaging modality for early detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. It reduces the need for unnecessary biopsies and optimizes patient management.</p>","PeriodicalId":49948,"journal":{"name":"Journal of X-Ray Science and Technology","volume":" ","pages":"8953996241304988"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of X-Ray Science and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08953996241304988","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to assess and compare the diagnostic performance of three advanced imaging modalities-multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT)-in detecting prostate cancer in patients with elevated PSA levels and abnormal DRE findings.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 150 male patients aged 50-75 years with elevated PSA and abnormal DRE. The diagnostic accuracy of each modality was assessed through sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC) to compare performance in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥ 7).

Results: MpMRI demonstrated the highest diagnostic performance, with a sensitivity of 90%, specificity of 85%, and AUC of 0.92, outperforming both TRUS (sensitivity 76%, specificity 78%, AUC 0.77) and PET/CT (sensitivity 82%, specificity 80%, AUC 0.81). MpMRI detected clinically significant tumors in 80% of cases. Although TRUS and PET/CT had similar detection rates for significant tumors, their overall accuracy was lower. Minor adverse events occurred in 5% of patients undergoing TRUS, while no significant complications were associated with mpMRI or PET/CT.

Conclusion: These findings suggest that mpMRI is the most reliable imaging modality for early detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. It reduces the need for unnecessary biopsies and optimizes patient management.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
23.30%
发文量
150
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Research areas within the scope of the journal include: Interaction of x-rays with matter: x-ray phenomena, biological effects of radiation, radiation safety and optical constants X-ray sources: x-rays from synchrotrons, x-ray lasers, plasmas, and other sources, conventional or unconventional Optical elements: grazing incidence optics, multilayer mirrors, zone plates, gratings, other diffraction optics Optical instruments: interferometers, spectrometers, microscopes, telescopes, microprobes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信