Adenocarcinoma of the prostate
remains the most common malignant neoplasm and the second cause of cancer-specific death among men in the
United States.[1,2] For the year 2000, the number of new cases of prostate
cancer in the United States is estimated to be 180,400, with 31,900 expected
deaths.[1,2] Because early disease is usually asymptomatic, the need for
reliable diagnostic modalities to identify patients with early-stage prostate
cancer is essential if effective therapy is to be contemplated.
Determining the extent of disease in newly diagnosed patients is
another critical issue. More than one-third of patients with apparent clinically
localized prostate cancer already have extraprostatic disease.[3,4] Pretreatment
identification of this group of high-risk patients is essential for the
selection of an optimum therapy. If the disease is confined to the prostate,
it could be curable with definitive local therapy such as surgery or radiation.
Conversely, if the disease extends beyond the confines of the gland, other
treatment approaches may be more appropriate.
Improvements in screening and diagnosing prostate cancer
occurred with the use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and the development of
gray-scale transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy techniques.[7-10] Years of
experience have shown that TRUS-directed biopsy, while very useful, has several
limitations.[11-13] Prospective TRUS imaging data have demonstrated that
conventional gray-scale TRUS is slightly superior to random chance in detecting
prostate cancer. The present trend is to increase the number of biopsies in
order to compensate for the limitations of imaging alone.
The traditional lesion-directed biopsy led to the development of
the six-core or "sextant" biopsy technique. Today, the trend is to
perform 8 to 10 biopsies to more adequately sample the prostate gland. These
additional biopsies tend to be laterally directed. This increase in the need
for additional biopsies is partly due to current limitations in adequately
identifying cancer with noninvasive imaging.
Imaging remains an essential part of specific management
approaches to prostate cancer, such as the use of TRUS in prostate brachytherapy
and cryotherapy. Imaging modalities used to diagnose and stage prostate cancer
include magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT).[5,6] Bone
scans and plain x-rays are used to detect distant metastasis. However, the
ability of these modalities to detect and stage prostate cancer is limited.
The need for a more accurate imaging test has led to the
development of new imaging technologies for both the diagnosis and staging of
prostate cancer. These recent advances include Doppler imaging, contrast
imaging,[16-20] MRI spectroscopy, and radioimmunoscintigraphy.[21-31] This
article will review and critically assess the current status of prostate cancer
imaging modalities, as well as discuss the evolving role of these newer imaging
Gray-Scale Transrectal Ultrasonography
The role of gray-scale TRUS as an imaging modality for the
prostate was firmly established in the 1980s with the introduction of
high-frequency (7-MHz) transducers, the use of real-time ultrasound imaging, the
development of biplanar probes, and the clinical applicability of outpatient
transrectal biopsy. Gray-scale TRUS is frequently used to guide prostate
biopsies (Figure 1) and for the evaluation of a patient with a palpably abnormal
digital rectal examination or abnormal laboratory tests suggestive of prostate
cancer (eg, elevated PSA). In some instances, TRUS may be used to monitor
responses following a prostate cancer treatment in which the prostate was left
Limitations of Gray-Scale TRUS: Although gray-scale TRUS was
a major achievement in improving the diagnostic yield of prostate cancerespecially
in cases of nonpalpable disease (ie, stage T1c)experience has shown TRUS to
have several limitations. The subjective nature of the exam and the expertise of
the clinician may affect the interpretation of images. Interpretation of
real-time, gray-scale TRUS images is also restricted by limitations of human
visual perception. A recent study showed that an expert user was not able to
discriminate among images with more than 32 gray levels out of 256 displayed on
a gray-scale image. Therefore, any technical improvement of ultrasound scanners
may not always be perceived by human interpretation.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of standard gray-scale TRUS is
the nonspecific, echogenic nature of the tumor itself. Very early studies[7,9]
suggested that prostate cancer was associated with hyperechogenicity. Presently,
prostate cancer is believed to have an echogenicity that is less than that of
normal prostate gland tissue (hypoechoic), with some series reporting 60% to 97%
of cases as hypoechoic.[32,33]
Hyperechoic cancers are now considered very rare, and some
authors have even questioned their true existence. If present, hyperechoic
prostate cancers are usually carcinomas of the comedo type or cancers that have
invaded areas of calcification or corpora amylacea. Egawa et al reported
hyperechogenic prostate cancer to account for 1.3% of cases in a contemporary
Up to 25% of tumors are reported to be isoechoic (the same
echogenicity as the normal prostate tissue). Isoechoic tumors are almost
impossible to detect because a clear distinction between the tumor and
surrounding prostate gland tissue cannot be made on the basis of echogenicity.
In such cases, the presence of secondary signssuch as glandular asymmetry,
capsular bulging, and areas of attenuationmight prove helpful.
Echogenic discrepancies may again be a useless diagnostic
criterion in cases where the tumor diffuses and totally replaces an entire zone
or the entire gland. Overall, the presented data suggest that gray-scale TRUS
alone is unreliable in diagnosing prostate cancer and must always be performed
with a biopsy to evaluate for cancer.
Early studies generated enthusiasm about the role of TRUS in
improving the staging of locally advanced prostate cancer. However, this
enthusiasm soon faded when other studies failed to demonstrate that TRUS was
better than a digital rectal exam for the detection of local extension. The
ability of TRUS to detect a neurovascular bundle or seminal vesicle involvement
is operator dependent and is associated with a high false-positive rate for
seminal vesicle involvement.
In general, an accurate assessment of locally advanced disease
is frequently difficult; available ultrasound units do not have adequate
resolution to detect the microscopic extension associated with many cases of
locally advanced disease. This was reflected in staging studies that reported
low predictive values of gray-scale TRUS ranging from 18% to 60%. For these
reasons, gray-scale TRUS is considered by most to be a nonreliable tool for
staging locally advanced disease.
The Doppler shift frequency is an effect that applies to all
wave motion. Discovered by Austrian physicist Christian Doppler (1803-1853), the
effect refers to a change in wave frequency caused by the motion of a wave
source, receiver, or reflector. Acoustic Doppler effect is frequently
experienced in our daily life, for example, with approaching and receding sirens
or train whistles. Mathematically, this effect is represented by the following
fD = 2f0vcosq/c
where fD is the Doppler frequency shift,
f0 is the incident
frequency, v is the flow velocity, c is the speed of sound in tissue, and q
the angle between the ultrasound beam and flow direction. Simply put, this
equation measures the difference in frequency of returning echoes and emitted
Principles of Use in Medicine: Doppler ultrasound is mainly
used in medicine to detect the presence or absence of blood flow in vessels, its
direction, and its characteristics. In urology, this technology has been
frequently applied to detect the velocity of renal blood flow, penile
vasculature, and to assess neovascularity in renal, testicular, and prostate
Flow can be detected either by pulsed-wave Doppler (which
displays the frequency shift or velocity as spectral waves) or color Doppler
imaging, also known as color-flow imaging. Color-flow imaging provides a
two-dimensional (2D), cross-sectional, real-time, color-coded Doppler shift that
is superimposed on the real-time gray-scale anatomic display. It displays
the range of the mean frequency shift or velocities of red blood cells within
flowing blood as colors of the spectrum. Flow toward the transducer is depicted
in various shades of red, and flow away from the transducer is characterized by
shades of blue.
Normally, the prostate gland should demonstrate symmetrical,
low-to-absent color-flow signal intensity, with the periurethral area exhibiting
some flow and the outer gland showing minimal to no flow.[39,41,42] Several
studies have demonstrated that malignant prostate tissue can sometimes be
associated with abnormal vascular patterns.[43-48] Detection of these abnormal
blood flow patterns within prostatic tumors is the main application of Doppler
ultrasound in prostate cancer imaging.
Early Clinical Results: Early results using pulsed Doppler
were disappointing, and slightly better results were reported later with the
use of color Doppler imaging. Rifkin et al reported their experience in
619 patients in whom color Doppler imaging was used as an adjunct to gray-scale
TRUS. Using TRUS biopsies of foci lesions identified with gray-scale imaging or
from sites showing flow abnormality on color Doppler imaging scans, they
confirmed the presence of 132 cancers in 121 men. A total of 123 men (93%) had
corresponding gray-scale abnormalities, and 114 men (86%) demonstrated abnormal
flow on color Doppler imaging. Nine patients (7%) showed no obviously
identifiable abnormality on gray-scale scanning but had distinctly abnormal flow
on color Doppler scanning.
Kelly and associates reported a sensitivity of 96% for TRUS
alone and 87% for color Doppler imaging. The addition of color Doppler imaging
increased the positive-predictive value (PPV) from 0.53 using TRUS alone to 0.77but
at a cost of reduced sensitivity. In only 1 case out of 158, color Doppler
imaging suggested the diagnosis of malignancy independently of TRUS. The authors
concluded that color Doppler imaging improves the PPV of TRUS, but has no
demonstrable value over TRUS alone in the diagnosis of prostate cancer.
Correlation With Biopsy Findings: Newman and coworkers
correlated color Doppler imaging results with the histologic findings from
site-specific transrectal core biopsies. In this study, color Doppler imaging
had a sensitivity of 49%, specificity of 93%, and PPV of 62%, and was able to
detect at least one focus of carcinoma in seven patients with no gray-scale
abnormalities. The findings indicated that focal peripheral zone
hypervascularity on color Doppler imaging is associated with an increased
likelihood of prostate cancer or inflammation on biopsyoften without a focal
gray-scale abnormality. Although the authors suggested that color Doppler
imaging may help identify an appropriate site for biopsy, they stated that a
negative color Doppler imaging scan should not preclude biopsy, since it has a
limited sensitivity in the detection of all sites of cancer.
Patel and Rickards investigated the discriminative value of
the amount of color flow on Doppler ultrasound within the peripheral zone of the
prostate. The histologic outcome of 274 guided biopsies was correlated with the
grade of color flow on ultrasound hard-copy images. They noted that normal color
flow was seen with both normal and abnormal prostate biopsies. Results of the
study demonstrated that with the greatest color flow, specificity for the
diagnosis of an abnormal prostate (either cancer or prostatitis) is very high,
and that with prostatitis, a markedly increased color flow reflects the severity
of inflammatory cellular reaction. Nevertheless, the authors concluded that
grading the amount of color flow with Doppler ultrasound is of limited
Predictive Value of Tumor Vascularization: The prognostic
significance of detecting an increased flow within a given tumor has also been
investigated. Findings of several studies have indicated that tumor
vascularization may correlate with its potential for rapid growth and distant
metastasis.[44-47] Brawer et al demonstrated that the histologic
determination of microvessel density in prostatic carcinoma is an independent
predictor of pathologic stage, and, hence, malignant potential.
Thus, quantification of tumor angiogenesis may guide prostate
cancer treatment strategies. This issue was partly addressed in a study by
Littrup et al, in which cancers with a high color flow had significantly
higher mean Gleason scores than cancers without demonstrable color flow,
particularly in African-American men.
Our group previously demonstrated that color-coded Doppler flow
within the tumor correlates with both tumor grade and stage, and that increased
flow is associated with a higher Gleason score and higher incidence of seminal
vesicle invasion. Our study findings also indicated that increased flow noted on
color Doppler imaging is independently predictive of the likelihood of
biochemical relapse following radical prostatectomy.
Drawbacks of Color Doppler Imaging: Although studies suggest
that color Doppler imaging has potential prognostic significance, it still has
two major pitfalls: overlap with prostatitis and low sensitivity in the
detection of tumor blood flow within a prostatic carcinoma. Its failure to
detect tumor blood flow may be partly attributed to the fact that the presence
or absence of tumor flow may be influenced by tumor size or volume, with tumors
2 mm in diameter being avascular and those at least 1 cm3 possessing
vascularity. Other technical factors may also contribute to the failure of
tumor blood flow detection: (1) The limited spatial resolution on color Doppler
makes it difficult to detect blood flow in very small vessels, and (2)
low-volume flow results in frequency shifts below the noise level, and
consequently, cannot be detected.
Power Doppler: More recently, the amplitude or power of the
Doppler shift (known as power Doppler) has been encoded into color Doppler and
used to detect flow. The main advantage of power Doppler is its ability to
detect slower flow with less reliance on the Doppler angle.
Our group recently compared the accuracy of gray-scale TRUS,
color Doppler imaging, and power Doppler imaging in the detection of prostate
cancer, and then assessed the influence of operator experience on test
results. Our study indicated that gray-scale TRUS and Doppler imaging are
minimally effective in prostate cancer detection, that there is no benefit of
power Doppler over color Doppler imaging, and that there is no apparent benefit
from increased operator experience with Doppler imaging. We did, however,
observe that with gray-scale TRUS or Doppler, foci abnormalities were 2.5 times
more likely to contain cancer than adjacent tissues with normal ultrasound
findings. While Doppler flow studies may provide some prognostic data, the
routine use of this technique for the diagnosis of prostate cancer does not
appear to be warranted at the present time.
1. Greenlee RT, Murray T, Bolden S, et al: Cancer statistics
2000. CA Cancer J Clin 50:7-33, 2000.
2. Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden S, et al: Cancer statistics 1999.
CA Cancer J Clin 49:8-31, 1999.
3. Partin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB, et al: The use of prostate
specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage
in men with localized prostate cancer [see comments]. J Urol 150:110-114, 1993.
4. Saitoh H, Yoshida K, Uchijima Y, et al: Two different lymph
node metastatic patterns
of a prostatic cancer. Cancer 65:1843-1846,
5. Manyak MJ, Javitt MC: The role of computerized tomography,
magnetic resonance imaging, bone scan, and monoclonal antibody nuclear scan for
prognosis prediction in prostate cancer. Semin Urol Oncol 16:145-152, 1998.
6. Kindrick AV, Grossfeld GD, Stier DM, et al: Use of imaging
tests for staging newly diagnosed prostate cancer: Trends from the CaPSURE
database. J Urol 160:2102-2106, 1998.
7. Resnick MI, Willard JW, Boyce WH: Transrectal ultrasonography
in the evaluation of patients with prostatic carcinoma. J Urol 124:482-484,
8. Resnick MI: Evaluation of prostatic carcinoma: Noninvasive
and preoperative techniques. Prostate 1:311-320, 1980.
9. Rifkin MD, Kurtz AB, Choi HY, et al: Endoscopic ultrasonic
evaluation of the prostate using a transrectal probe: Prospective evaluation and
acoustic characterization. Radiology 149:265-271, 1983.
10. Rifkin MD, Kurtz AB, Goldberg BB: Prostate biopsy utilizing
transrectal ultrasound guidance: Diagnosis of nonpalpable cancers. J Ultrasound
Med 2:165-167, 1983.
11. Lavoipierre AM, Snow RM, Frydenberg M, et al: Prostatic
cancer: Role of color Doppler imaging in transrectal sonography. AJR Am J
Roentgenol 171:205-210, 1998.
12. Ismail M, Gomella LG, Alexander AA: Color Doppler sonography
of the prostate. Tech Urol 3:140-146, 1997.
13. Aarnink RG, Beerlage HP, De La Rosette JJ, et al:
Transrectal ultrasound of the prostate: Innovations and future applications. J
Urol 159:1568-1579, 1998.
14. Halpern EJ, Strup SE: Using gray scale, color and power
Doppler sonography to detect prostatic cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol
15. Presti JC Jr, Chang JJ, Bhargava V, et al: The optimal
systematic prostate biopsy scheme should include 8 rather than 6 biopsies:
Results of a prospective clinical trial [see comments]. J Urol 163:163-166;
discussion 166-167, 2000.
16. Okihara K, Kojima M, Nakanouchi T, et al: The role of power
Doppler-guided prostatic biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Hinyokika
Kiyo 45:559-563, 1999.
17. Pavlica P, Barozzi L, Veneziano S: Contrast media in
ultrasonography. Prostate. Radiol Med (Torino) 95:71-74, 1998.
18. Ragde H, Kenny GM, Murphy GP, et al: Transrectal ultrasound
microbubble contrast angiography of the prostate. Prostate 32:279-283, 1997.
19. Watanabe M: Color Doppler enhancement with contrast agents
for the detection of prostatic cancer. Nippon Rinsho 56:1040-1044, 1998.
20. Bogers HA, Sedelaar JP, Beerlage HP, et al:
Contrast-enhanced three-dimensional power Doppler angiography of the human
prostate: Correlation with biopsy outcome. Urology 54:97-104, 1999.
21. Manyak MJ, Hinkle GH, Olsen JO, et al: Immunoscintigraphy
with indium-111-capromab pendetide: Evaluation before definitive therapy in
patients with prostate cancer. Urology 54:1058-1063, 1999.
22. Hinkle GH, Burgers JK, Neal CE, et al: Multicenter
radioimmunoscintigraphic evaluation of patients with prostate carcinoma using
indium-111 capromab pendetide. Cancer 83:739-747, 1998.
23. Hinkle GH, Burgers JK, Olsen JO, et al: Prostate cancer
abdominal metastases detected with indium-111 capromab pendetide [see comments].
J Nucl Med 39:650-652, 1998.
24. Williams BS, Hinkle GH, Lamatrice RA, et al: Technical
considerations for acquiring and processing indium-111 capromab pendetide
images. J Nucl Med Technol 25:205-216, 1997.
25. Burgers JK, Hinkle GH, Haseman MK: Monoclonal antibody
imaging of recurrent and metastatic prostate cancer. Semin Urol 13:103-112,
26. Badalament RA, Burgers JK, Petty LR, et al:
Radioimmunoguided radical prostatectomy and lymphadenectomy. Cancer
27. Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron DB, Hricak H, et al:
Three-dimensional H-1 MR spectroscopic imaging of the in situ human prostate
with high (0.24-0.7-cm3) spatial resolution. Radiology 198:795-805, 1996.
28. Yu KK, Scheidler J, Hricak H, et al: Prostate cancer:
Prediction of extracapsular extension with endorectal MR imaging and
three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 213:481-488, 1999.
29. Scheidler J, Hricak H, Vigneron DB, et al: Prostate cancer:
Localization with three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imagingClinicopathologic
study. Radiology 213:473-480, 1999.
30. Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron DB, Nelson SJ, et al: Citrate as an
in vivo marker to discriminate prostate cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia
and normal prostate peripheral zone: Detection via localized proton
spectroscopy. Urology 45:459-466, 1995.
31. Narayan P, Kurhanewicz J: Magnetic resonance spectroscopy in
prostate disease: Diagnostic possibilities and future developments. Prostate
Suppl 4:43-50, 1992.
32. Griffiths GJ, Clements R, Jones DR, et al: The ultrasound
appearances of prostatic cancer with histological correlation. Clin Radiol
33. Lee F, Gray JM, McLeary RD, et al: Transrectal ultrasound in
the diagnosis of prostate cancer: Location, echogenicity, histopathology, and
staging. Prostate 7:117-129, 1985.
34. Egawa S, Wheeler TM, Greene DR, et al: Unusual hyperechoic
appearance of prostate cancer on transrectal ultrasonography. Br J Urol
35. Rifkin MD, Zerhouni EA, Gatsonis CA, et al: Comparison of
magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in staging early prostate cancer:
Results of a multi-institutional cooperative trial [see comments]. N Engl J Med
36. Taylor KJ, Ramos I, Carter D, et al: Correlation of Doppler
US tumor signals with neovascular morphologic features. Radiology 166:57-62,
37. Ramos IM, Taylor KJ, Kier R, et al: Tumor vascular signals
in renal masses: Detection with Doppler US. Radiology 168:633-637, 1988.
38. Horstman WG, Melson GL, Middleton WD, et al: Testicular
tumors: Findings with color Doppler US. Radiology 185:733-737, 1992.
39. Rifkin MD, Sudakoff GS, Alexander AA: Prostate: Techniques,
results, and potential applications of color Doppler US scanning. Radiology
40. Foley WD, Erickson SJ: Color Doppler flow imaging. AJR Am J
Roentgenol 156:3-13, 1991.
41. Narayan P, Jajodia P, Kurhanewicz J, et al: Characterization
of prostate cancer, benign prostatic hyperplasia and normal prostates using
transrectal 31phosphorus magnetic resonance spectroscopy: A preliminary report.
J Urol 146:66-74, 1991.
42. Rifkin MD, Alexander AA, Helinek TG, et al: Color Doppler as
an adjunct to prostate ultrasound. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 137:85-89, 1991.
43. Bigler SA, Deering RE, Brawer MK: Comparison of microscopic
vascularity in benign and malignant prostate tissue. Hum Pathol 24:220-226,
44. Weidner N, Carroll PR, Flax J, et al: Tumor angiogenesis
correlates with metastasis in invasive prostate carcinoma. Am J Pathol
45. Fregene TA, Khanuja PS, Noto AC, et al: Tumor-associated
angiogenesis in prostate cancer. Anticancer Res 13:2377-2381, 1993.
46. Brawer MK, Deering RE, Brown M, et al: Predictors of
pathologic stage in prostatic carcinoma. The role of neovascularity. Cancer
47. Bostwick DG, Wheeler TM, Blute M, et al: Optimized
microvessel density analysis improves prediction of cancer stage from prostate
needle biopsies. Urology 48:47-57, 1996.
48. Lissbrant IF, Stattin P, Damber JE, et al: Vascular density
is a predictor of cancer-specific survival in prostatic carcinoma. Prostate
49. Kelly IM, Lees WR, Rickards D: Prostate cancer and the role
of color Doppler US. Radiology 189:153-156, 1993.
50. Newman JS, Bree RL, Rubin JM: Prostate cancer: Diagnosis
with color Doppler sonography with histologic correlation of each biopsy site
[see comments]. Radiology 195:86-90, 1995.
51. Patel U, Rickards D: The diagnostic value of colour Doppler
flow in the peripheral zone of the prostate, with histological correlation. Br J
Urol 74:590-595, 1994.
52. Littrup PJ, Klein RM, Gross ML, et al: Color Doppler guides
prostate biopsies to higher grade cancer: Racial implications. J Urol
53. Ismail M, Petersen RO, Alexander AA, et al: Color Doppler
imaging in predicting the biologic behavior of prostate cancer: Correlation with
disease-free survival. Urology 50:906-912, 1997.
54. Folkman J, Cotran R: Relation of vascular proliferation to
tumor growth. Int Rev Exp Pathol 16:207-248, 1976.
55. Jain SP, Fan PH, Philpot EF, et al: Influence of various
instrument settings on the flow information derived from the power mode.
Ultrasound Med Biol 17:49-54, 1991.
56. Gramiak R, Shah PM: Echocardiography of the aortic root.
Invest Radiol 3:356-366, 1968.
57. Forsberg F, Merton DA, Liu JB, et al: Clinical applications
of ultrasound contrast agents. Ultrasonics 36:695-701, 1998.
58. Verstraete KL, Van der Woude HJ, Hogendoorn PC, et al:
Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of musculoskeletal tumors: Basic principles
and clinical applications. J Magn Reson Imaging 6:311-321, 1996.
59. Albrecht T, Urbank A, Mahler M, et al: Prolongation and
optimization of Doppler enhancement with a microbubble US contrast agent by
using continuous infusion: Preliminary experience. Radiology 207:339-347, 1998.
60. de Jong N, Ten Cate FJ, Lancee CT, et al: Principles and
recent developments in ultrasound contrast agents. Ultrasonics 29:324-330, 1991.
61. Halpern EJ, Verkh L, Forsberg F, et al: Initial clinical
experience with contrast-enhanced sonography of the prostate using Imagent. AJR
Am J Roentgenol 174(6):1575-1580, 2000.
62. Porter TR, Xie F: Transient myocardial contrast after
initial exposure to diagnostic ultrasound pressures with minute doses of
intravenously injected microbubbles. Demonstration and potential mechanisms.
Circulation 92:2391-2395, 1995.
63. Colon PJ 3rd, Richards DR, Moreno CA, et al: Benefits of
reducing the cardiac cycle-triggering frequency of ultrasound imaging to
increase myocardial opacification with FSO69 during fundamental and second
harmonic imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 10:602-607, 1997.
64. Broillet A, Puginier J, Ventrone R, et al: Assessment of
myocardial perfusion by intermittent harmonic power Doppler using SonoVue, a new
ultrasound contrast agent. Invest Radiol 33:209-215, 1998.
65. Porter TR, Kricsfeld D, Cheatham S, et al: The effect of
ultrasound frame rate on perfluorocarbon-exposed sonicated dextrose albumin
microbubble size and concentration when insonifying at different flow rates,
transducer frequencies, and acoustic outputs. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 10:593-601,
66. Schrope BA, Newhouse VL: Second harmonic ultrasonic blood
perfusion measurement. Ultrasound Med Biol 19:567-579, 1993.
67. Schrope B, Newhouse VL, Uhlendorf V: Simulated capillary
blood flow measurement using a nonlinear ultrasonic contrast agent. Ultrason
Imaging 14:134-158, 1992.
68. Forsberg F, Goldberg BB, Liu JB, et al: On the feasibility
of real-time, in vivo harmonic imaging with proteinaceous microspheres. J
Ultrasound Med 15:853-860; quiz 861-862, 1996.
69. Cooner WH, Mosley BR, Rutherford CL Jr, et al: Prostate
cancer detection in a clinical urological practice by ultrasonography, digital
rectal examination and prostate specific antigen. J Urol 143:1146-1152;
discussion 1152-1154, 1990.
70. Schnall MD, Lenkinski RE, Pollack HM, et al: Prostate: MR
imaging with an endorectal surface coil. Radiology 172:570-574, 1989.
71. Carter HB, Brem RF, Tempany CM, et al: Nonpalpable prostate
cancer: Detection with MR imaging. Radiology 178:523-525, 1991.
72. Carrol CL, Sommer FG, McNeal JE, et al: The abnormal
prostate: MR imaging at 1.5 T with histopathologic correlation. Radiology
73. Kahn T, Burrig K, Schmitz-Drager B, et al: Prostatic
carcinoma and benign prostatic hyperplasia: MR imaging with histopathologic
correlation. Radiology 173:847-851, 1989.
74. Ling D, Lee JK, Heiken JP, et al: Prostatic carcinoma and
benign prostatic hyperplasia: Inability of MR imaging to distinguish between the
two diseases. Radiology 158:103-107, 1986.
75. Bryan PJ, Butler HE, Nelson AD, et al: Magnetic resonance
imaging of the prostate. AJR Am J Roentgenol 146:543-548, 1986.
76. Quint LE, Van Erp JS, Bland PH, et al: Carcinoma of the
prostate: MR images obtained with body coils do not accurately reflect tumor
volume. AJR Am J Roentgenol 156:511-516, 1991.
77. Schiebler ML, Yankaskas BC, Tempany C, et al: MR imaging in
adenocarcinoma of the prostate: Interobserver variation and efficacy for
determining stage C disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 158:559-562; discussion
78. Schiebler ML, Yankaskas BC, Tempany C, et al: Efficacy of
prostate-specific antigen and magnetic resonance imaging in staging stage C
adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Invest Radiol 27:575-577, 1992.
79. McSherry SA, Levy F, Schiebler ML, et al: Preoperative
prediction of pathological tumor volume and stage in clinically localized
prostate cancer: Comparison of digital rectal examination, transrectal
ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 146:85-89, 1991.
80. McNeal JE, Bostwick DG, Kindrachuk RA, et al: Patterns of
progression in prostate cancer. Lancet 1:60-63, 1986.
81. Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Freiha FS, et al: Morphometric and
clinical studies on 68 consecutive radical prostatectomies. J Urol
82. Partin AW, Epstein JI, Cho KR, et al: Morphometric
measurement of tumor volume and per cent of gland involvement as predictors of
pathological stage in clinical stage B prostate cancer. J Urol 141:341-345,
83. Sommer FG, Nghiem HV, Herfkens R, et al: Determining the
volume of prostatic carcinoma: Value of MR imaging with an external-array coil.
AJR Am J Roentgenol 161:81-86, 1993.
84. Tempany CM, Rahmouni AD, Epstein JI, et al: Invasion of the
neurovascular bundle by prostate cancer: Evaluation with MR imaging. Radiology
85. Kier R, Wain S, Troiano R: Fast spin-echo MR images of the
pelvis obtained with a phased-array coil: Value in localizing and staging
prostatic carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 161:601-606, 1993.
86. Martin JF, Hajek P, Baker L, et al: Inflatable surface coil
for MR imaging of the prostate. Radiology 167:268-270, 1988.
87. Schnall MD, Imai Y, Tomaszewski J, et al: Prostate cancer:
Local staging with endorectal surface coil MR imaging. Radiology 178:797-802,
88. Jager GJ, Ruijter ET, van de Kaa CA, et al: Local staging of
prostate cancer with endorectal MR imaging: Correlation with histopathology. AJR
Am J Roentgenol 166(4):845-852, 1996.
89. Ikonen S, Karkkainen P, Kivisaari L, et al: Magnetic
resonance imaging of clinically localized prostatic cancer. J Urol
90. Tempany CM, Zhou X, Zerhouni EA, et al: Staging of prostate
cancer: Results of Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group project comparison of
three MR imaging techniques. Radiology 192:47-54, 1994.
91. Quinn SF, Franzini DA, Demlow TA, et al: MR imaging of
prostate cancer with an endorectal surface coil technique: Correlation with
whole-mount specimens. Radiology 190:323-327, 1994.
92. Chelsky MJ, Schnall MD, Seidmon EJ, et al: Use of endorectal
surface coil magnetic resonance imaging for local staging of prostate cancer. J
Urol 150:391-395, 1993.
93. Outwater EK, Petersen RO, Siegelman ES, et al: Prostate
carcinoma: Assessment of diagnostic criteria for capsular penetration on
endorectal coil MR images. Radiology 193:333-339, 1994.
94. Parivar F, Rajanayagam V, Waluch V, et al: Endorectal
surface coil MR imaging of prostatic carcinoma with the inversion-recovery
sequence. J Magn Reson Imaging 1:657-664, 1991.
95. Mirowitz SA, Brown JJ, Heiken JP: Evaluation of the prostate
and prostatic carcinoma with gadolinium-enhanced endorectal coil MR imaging [see
comments]. Radiology 186:153-157, 1993.
96. Tsuda K, Yu KK, Coakley FV, et al: Detection of
extracapsular extension of prostate cancer: Role of fat suppression endorectal
MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr 23:74-78, 1999.
97. Costello LC, Franklin RB: Concepts of citrate production and
secretion by prostate. 1. Metabolic relationships. Prostate 18:25-46, 1991.
98. Costello LC, Franklin RB: Concepts of citrate production and
secretion by prostate: 2. Hormonal relationships in normal and neoplastic
prostate. Prostate 19:181-205, 1991.
99. Sillerud LO, Halliday KR, Griffey RH, et al: In vivo 13C NMR
spectroscopy of the human prostate. Magn Reson Med 8:224-230, 1988.
100. Halliday KR, Fenoglio-Preiser C, Sillerud LO:
Differentiation of human tumors from nonmalignant tissue by natural-abundance
13C NMR spectroscopy. Magn Reson Med 7:384-411, 1988.
101. Schiebler ML, Tomaszewski JE, Bezzi M, et al: Prostatic
carcinoma and benign prostatic hyperplasia: Correlation of high-resolution MR
and histopathologic findings. Radiology 172:131-137, 1989.
102. Kurhanewicz J, Thomas A, Jajodia P, et al: 31P spectroscopy
of the human prostate gland in vivo using a transrectal probe. Magn Reson Med
103. Barker PB, Glickson JD, Bryan RN: In vivo magnetic
resonance spectroscopy of human brain tumors. Top Magn Reson Imaging 5:32-45,
104. Brown TR: Practical applications of chemical shift imaging.
NMR Biomed 5:238-243, 1992.
105. Cornel EB, Smits GA, Oosterhof GO, et al: Characterization
of human prostate cancer, benign prostatic hyperplasia and normal prostate by in
vitro 1H and 31P magnetic resonance spectroscopy. J Urol 150:2019-2024, 1993.
106. Cornel EB, Smits GA, de Ruijter JE, et al: In vitro proton
magnetic resonance spectroscopy of four human prostate cancer cell lines.
Prostate 26:275-280, 1995.
107. Fowler AH, Pappas AA, Holder JC, et al: Differentiation of
human prostate cancer from benign hypertrophy by in vitro 1H NMR. Magn Reson Med
108. Kurhanewicz J, Dahiya R, Macdonald JM, et al: Citrate
alterations in primary and metastatic human prostatic adenocarcinomas: 1H
magnetic resonance spectroscopy and biochemical study. Magn Reson Med
109. Kaji Y, Kurhanewicz J, Hricak H, et al: Localizing prostate
cancer in the presence of postbiopsy changes on MR images: Role of proton MR
spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 206:785-790, 1998.
110. O’Dowd GJ, Veltri RW, Orozco R, et al: Update on the
appropriate staging evaluation for newly diagnosed prostate cancer [published
erratum appears in J Urol 158(6):2253, 1997]. J Urol 158:687-698, 1997.
111. Kallel F, Price RE, Konofagou E, et al: Elastographic
imaging of the normal canine prostate in vitro. Ultrason Imaging 21:201-215,
112. Ophir J, Alam SK, Garra B, et al: Elastography: Ultrasonic
estimation and imaging of the elastic properties of tissues. Proc Inst Mech Eng
[H] 213:203-233, 1999.
113. Krouskop TA, Wheeler TM, Kallel F, et al: Elastic moduli of
breast and prostate tissues under compression. Ultrasound Imaging 20:260-274,
114. Lee JK, McClennan BL, Stanley RJ, et al: Use of CT in
evaluation of postcystectomy patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 136:483-487, 1981.
115. Platt JF, Bree RL, Schwab RE: The accuracy of CT in the
staging of carcinoma of the prostate. AJR Am J Roentgenol 149:315-318, 1987.
116. Flanigan RC, Mohler JL, King CT, et al: Preoperative lymph
node evaluation in prostatic cancer patients who are surgical candidates: The
role of lymphangiography and computerized tomography scanning with directed
fine-needle aspiration. J Urol 134:84-87, 1985.
117. Ferguson JK, Oesterling JE: Patient evaluation if
prostate-specific antigen becomes elevated following radical prostatectomy or
radiation therapy. Urol Clin North Am 21:677-685, 1994.
118. Oyen RH, Van Poppel HP, Ameye FE, et al: Lymph node staging
of localized prostatic carcinoma with CT and CT-guided fine-needle aspiration
biopsy: Prospective study of 285 patients [see comments]. Radiology 190:315-322,
119. Goldenberg DM, DeLand FH, Bennett SJ, et al:
Radioimmunodetection of prostatic cancer: In vivo use of radioactive antibodies
against prostatic acid phosphatase for diagnosis and detection of prostatic
cancer by nuclear imaging. JAMA 250:630-635, 1983.
120. Dillman RO, Beauregard J, Ryan KP, et al:
Radioimmunodetection of cancer with the use of indium-111-labeled monoclonal
antibodies. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 3:33-36, 1987.
121. Whitmore WF: Natural history and staging of prostate
cancer. Urol Clin North Am 11:205-220, 1984.
122. Lentle BC, McGowan DG, Dierich H: Technetium-99M
polyphosphate bone scanning in carcinoma of the prostate. Br J Urol 46:543-548,
123. Paulson DF: The impact of current staging procedures in
assessing disease extent of prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol 121:300-302, 1979.
124. Oesterling JE: Using PSA to eliminate the staging
radionuclide bone scan. Significant economic implications Urol Clin North Am
125. Ball JD, Maynard CD: Nuclear imaging in urology. Urol Clin
North Am 6:321-342, 1979.