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
Review
. 2022 Nov 10;58(11):1624.
doi: 10.3390/medicina58111624.

Micro-Ultrasound in the Diagnosis and Staging of Prostate and Bladder Cancer: A Comprehensive Review

Francesco Paolo Calace  1 , Luigi Napolitano  2 , Davide Arcaniolo  1 , Marco Stizzo  1 , Biagio Barone  2 , Felice Crocetto  2 , Michelangelo Olivetta  1 , Ugo Amicuzi  1 , Luigi Cirillo  2 , Andrea Rubinacci  1 , Arturo Lecce  1 , Savio Domenico Pandolfo  2 , Nunzio Alberto Langella  3 , Francesco Persico  3 , Francesco Trama  4 , Carmelo Quattrone  1 , Francesco Bottone  1 , Lorenzo Spirito  1 , Marco De Sio  1 , Celeste Manfredi  1
Affiliations
Review

Micro-Ultrasound in the Diagnosis and Staging of Prostate and Bladder Cancer: A Comprehensive Review

Francesco Paolo Calace et al. Medicina (Kaunas). .

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate and prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA PET) are some examples of how the advancement of imaging techniques have revolutionized the diagnosis, staging, and consequently management of patients with prostate cancer (PCa). Although with less striking results, novel radiological modalities have also been proposed for bladder cancer (BCa) in recent years. Micro-ultrasound (MUS) is an imaging examination characterized by high real-time spatial resolution, recently introduced in the urological field. This article aimed to describe the current evidence regarding the application of MUS for the diagnosis and staging of PCa and BCa. Materials and Methods: We designed a narrative review. A comprehensive search in the MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases was performed. Articles in English-language and published until July 2022 were deemed eligible. Retrospective and prospective primary clinical studies, as well as meta-analyses, were included. Results: MUS-guided prostate biopsy showed high sensitivity (0.91, 95% CI, 0.79-0.97) in the diagnosis of clinically significant PCa (csPCa). It was associated with a higher detection rate of csPCa than a systematic biopsy (1.18, 95% CI 0.83-1.68). No significant difference was found between MUS and mpMRI-guided biopsy in the total detection of PCa (p = 0.89) and in the detection of Grade Groups ≥ 2 (p = 0.92). The use of MUS to distinguish between non-muscle-invasive and muscle-invasive BCa was described, highlighting an up-staging with MUS only in a minority of cases (28.6%). Conclusions: Promising findings have emerged regarding the feasibility and accuracy of MUS in the diagnosis and staging of PCa and BCa. However, the available evidence is limited and should be considered preliminary.

Keywords: bladder; cancer; high resolution; micro-ultrasound; prostate; tumor.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
MUS of prostate: hypoechoic lesion and irregular prostate border.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Haberkorn U., Eder M., Kopka K., Babich J.W., Eisenhut M. New Strategies in Prostate Cancer: Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA) Ligands for Diagnosis and Therapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 2016;22:9–15. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-0820. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Panebianco V., Narumi Y., Altun E., Bochner B.H., Efstathiou J.A., Hafeez S., Huddart R., Kennish S., Lerner S., Montironi R., et al. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Bladder Cancer: Development of VI-RADS (Vesical Imaging-Reporting And Data System) Eur. Urol. 2018;74:294–306. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.04.029. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mottet N., Cornford P., van den Bergh R.C.N., Briers E., de Santis M., Gillessen S., Grummet J., Henry A.M., van der Kwast T.H., Lam T.B., et al. EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer; Proceedings of the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam; Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 1–4 June 2022; Arnhem, The Netherlands: Eau Guidelines Office; 2022.
    1. Schoentgen N., Califano G., Manfredi C., Romero-Otero J., Chun F.K.H., Ouzaid I., Hermieu J.F., Xylinas E., Verze P. Is It Worth Starting Sexual Rehabilitation Before Radical Prostatectomy? Results From a Systematic Review of the Literature. Front. Surg. 2021;8:648345. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.648345. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Massanova M., Robertson S., Barone B., Dutto L., Caputo V.F., Bhatt J.R., Ahmad I., Bada M., Obeidallah A., Crocetto F. The Comparison of Imaging and Clinical Methods to Estimate Prostate Volume: A Single-Centre Retrospective Study. Urol. Int. 2021;105:804–810. doi: 10.1159/000516681. - DOI - PubMed