Sonoelasticity imaging of prostate cancer: in vitro results.
OBJECTIVE
To compare sonoelasticity imaging versus ultrasound (US) in detection of prostate cancer.


METHODS
Sonoelasticity imaging and US were performed on 10 prostatectomy specimens in which cancer was detected at previous biopsy. Six patients had no palpable lesions at digital rectal examination. Specimens were imaged axially at the apex, middle, and base of the gland to correlate with location of pathologic sections. All images were interpreted blindly and prospectively, and results were compared with pathologic findings.


RESULTS
Sensitivity and specificity with sonoelasticity imaging were 85% and 84%, respectively, and 30% and 100% with standard US when compared with pathologic findings. Sixty-four percent of pathologically confirmed tumors detected at sonoelasticity imaging were isoechoic on conventional US images.


CONCLUSIONS
In this limited study, sonoelasticity imaging was more sensitive for tumor detection and more accurate for assessment of tumor location than was conventional US.
Rubens
D J
DJ
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, NY 14642-8648, USA.
Hadley
M A
MA
Alam
S K
SK
Gao
L
L
Mayer
R D
RD
Parker
K J
KJ
D000230:Adenocarcinoma / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D000368:Aged; D004548:Elasticity; D006801:Humans; D066298:In Vitro Techniques; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D011467:Prostate / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D011468:Prostatectomy; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D014463:Ultrasonography / Q000379:methods; D014732:Vibration