Histoscan-guided targeted biopsy of the prostate

Introduction. Prostate cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed malignant neoplasm in men. The development of technologies requires the study of advanced research methods, an extraordinary, new limited-invasive method for diagnosing cancer — histoscanning of the prostate. Histoscan is an innovative imaging technique that is potent of differentiating between benign and malignant areas within the examined prostate tissue. With the new “True Targeting” software, it is possible to perform a “targeted” biopsy in real time. 

Purpose. To determine the efficacy and safety of performing histoscan-guided targeted biopsy of the prostate.

Materials and methods. The prospective study with the inclusion of data from 2501 patients examined at the Clinic of urology of the Moscow State Medical University named after A.I. Evdokimov at the Municipal Clinical Hospital named after S.I. Spasokukotsky.

Results. The average age of the patients was 66 years, the level of prostate specific antigen was about 14,39 ng/ml, the volume of the prostate was 54,43 cm³. The overall incidence of prostate cancer was 53,38%, with a biopsy of 12 points — 52,1%, while with a targeted biopsy— 37,58%. Among the biopsy complications, hemospermia (Clavien–Dindo — I) was most often (33% of cases), hematuria (Clavien–Dindo — I–II) in 15% of cases. No serious complications were identified.

Limitations. As restrictions, the following were identified: prostate biopsy-subject, 2501 patients — a quantitative parameter, patients with suspected prostate cancer — a qualitative indicator.

Conclusion. The published results of the study showed that histoscan-guided biopsy ofthe prostate is safe, effective, and therefore has alarge potential in cancer diagnosis, as it helps both in choosing a treatment method and in planning the course of further surgery.

Compliance with ethical standards. The study was approved by the Interuniversity Ethics Committee of Moscow, extract from protocol No. 12-20, dated 11.19.2020. All patients signed an informed consent to participate in the study.

Contribution of the authors:
Kim Yu.A. — material collection and processing, writing the text;
Govorov A.V. — research concept and design, editing;
Vasilyev A.O. — research concept and design, editing;
Pushkar D.Yu. — research concept and design;
Khatkov I.E. — research concept and design.
All authors are responsible for the integrity of all parts of the manuscript and approval of the manuscript final version.

Acknowledgment. The study had no sponsorship.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Received: July 18, 2022 
Accepted: September 07, 2022
Published: December 12, 2022

1. Sung H., Ferlay J., Siegel R.L., Laversanne M.L., Soerjomataram I., Jemal A., et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021; 71(3): 209–49. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660

2. Vasil’ev A.O., Prilepskaya E.A., Kovylina M.V., Govorov A.V., Sadchenko A.V., Sidorenkov A.V., et al. Contemporary markers and histological features of prostate cancer. Urologiya. 2016; (6): 164–6. (in Russian)

3. Smeenge M., de la Rosette J.J., Wijkstra H. Current status of transrectal ultrasound techniques in prostate cancer. Curr. Opin. Urol. 2012; 22(4): 297–302. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0b013e3283548154

4. Loeb S., Vellekoop A., Ahmed H.U., Catto J., Emberton M., Nam R., et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur. Urol. 2013; 64(6): 876–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.049

5. Braeckman J., Autier P., Soviany C., Nir R., Nir D., Michielsen D., et al. The accuracy of transrectal ultrasonography supplemented with computer-aided ultrasonography for detecting small prostate cancers. BJU Int. 2008; 102(11): 1560–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07878.x

6. Braeckman J., Autier P., Garbar C., Marichal M.P., Soviany C., Nir R., et al. Computer-aided ultrasonography (HistoScanning): a novel technology for locating and characterizing prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2008; 101(3): 293–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07232.x

7. Macek P., Barret E., Sanchez-Salas R., Galiano M., Rozet F., Ahallal Y., et al. Prostate histoscanning in clinically localized biopsy proven prostate cancer – an accuracy study. J. Endourol. 2014; 28(3): 371–6. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0419

8. Chen F.K., de Castro Abreu A.L., Palmer S.L. Utility of ultrasound in the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of prostate cancer: state of the art. J. Nucl. Med. 2016; 57(3): 13–8. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.177196

9. Rouviere O., Melodelima C., Dinh Au.H., Bratan F., Pagnoux G., Sanzalone T., et al. Stiffness of benign and malignant prostate tissue measured by shear-wave elastography: a preliminary study. Eur. Radiol. 2017; 27(5): 1858–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4534-9

10. Mannaerts C.K., Wildeboer R., Remmers S., van Kollenburg R.A., Kajtazovic A., Hagemannet J., et al. Multiparametric ultrasound for prostate cancer detection and localization: correlation of b-mode, shear wave elastography and contrast enhanced ultrasound with radical prostatectomy specimens. J. Urol. 2019; 202(6): 1166–73. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000415

11. Abouassaly R., Klein E.A., El-Shefai A., Stephenson A. Impact of using 29 MHz high-resolution micro-ultrasound in real-time targeting of transrectal prostate biopsies: initial experience. World J. Urol. 2020; 38(5): 1201–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02863-y

12. Nazarenko G.I., Khitrova A.N. Ultrasound Diagnosis of Prostate in Modern Urological Practice [Ul’trazvukovaya diagnostika predstatel’noy zhelezy v sovremennoy urologicheskoy praktike]. Moscow: Vidar-M; 2012. (in Russian)

13. Ismail M., Petersen R.O., Alexander A.A., Newschaffer C., Gomella L.G. Color Doppler imaging in predicting the biologic behavior of prostate cancer: correlation with disease-free survival. Urology. 1997; 50(6): 906–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00403-2

14. Rohrbach D., Wodlinger B., Wen J., Mamoa J., Feleppa E. High-frequency quantitative ultrasound for imaging prostate cancer using a novel micro-ultrasound scanner. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2018; 44(7): 1341–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2018.02.014

15. Ghai S., Eure G., Fradet V., Hyndman M.E., McGrath T., Wodlinger B., et al. Assessing cancer risk on novel 29 MHz micro-ultrasound images of the prostate: creation of the micro-ultrasound protocol for prostate risk identification. J. Urol. 2016; 196(2): 562–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.093

16. Ghai S., Van der Kwast T. Suspicious findings on micro-ultrasound imaging and early deection of prostate cancer. Urol. Case Rep. 2018; 16: 98–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eucr.2017.11.013

17. Aigner F., Pallwein L., Junker D., Schäfer G., Mikuz G., Pedross F., et al. Value of real-time elastography targeted biopsy for prostate cancer detection in men with prostate specific antigen 1.25 ng/ml or greater and 4,00 ng/ml or less. J. Urol. 2010; 184(3): 913–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.05.026

18. Fütterer J.J., Briganti A., De Visschere P., Emberton M., Giannarini G., Kirkham A., et al. Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. A systematic review of the literature? Eur. Urol. 2015; 68(6): 1045–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.013

19. Thompson J.E., van Leeuwen P.J., Moses D., Shnier R., Brenner P., Delprado W., et al. The diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect significant prostate cancer. J. Urol. 2016; 195(5): 1428–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.10.140

20. Pokorny M.R., de Rooij M., Duncan E., Schröder F.H., Parkinson R., Barentsz J.O., et al. Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur. Urol. 2014; 66(1): 22–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.03.002

21. Wegelin O., van Melick H.H., Hooft L., Bosch J.R., Reitsma H.B., Barentsz J.O., et al. Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: a systematic review of in-bore versus magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration. Is there a preferred technique? Eur. Urol. 2017; 71(4): 517–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.07.041

22. Friedl A., Schneeweiss J., Sevcenco S., Eredics K., Kunit T., Susani M., et al. In-bore 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging-guided transrectal targeted prostate biopsy in a repeat biopsy population: diagnostic performance, complications, and learning curve. Eur. Urol. 2018; 114: 139–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.12.032

23. Baco E., Ukimura O., Rud E., Vlatkovic L., Svindland A., Aron M., et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-transectal ultrasound image-fusion biopsies accurately characterize the index tumor: correlation with step-sectioned radical prostatectomy specimens in 135 patients. Eur. Urol. 2015; 67(4): 787–94. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.077

24. Kasivisvanathan V., Rannikko A.S., Borghi M., Panebianco V., Mynderse L.A., Vaarala M.H., et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018; 378(19): 1767–77. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993

25. Wegelin O., van Melick H.H., Hooft L., Bosch J.L., Reitsma H.B., Barentsz J.O., et al. Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: A systematic review of in-bore versus magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration? Is there a preferred technique. Eur. Urol. 2017; 71(4): 517–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.07.041

26. Norris J.M., Kinnaird A., Margolis D.J., Padhani A.R., Walz J., Kasivisvanathan V. Developments in MRI-targeted prostate biopsy. Curr. Opin. Urol. 2020; 30(1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000683

27. Dickinson L., Hu Y., Ahmed H.U., Allen C., Kirham A.P., Emberton M., et al. Image-directed, tissue-preserving focal therapy of prostate cancer: a feasibility study of a novel deformable magnetic resonance-ultrasound (MR-US) registration system. Br. J. Urol. 2013; 112(5): 594–601. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12223

28. Schiffmann J., Tennstedt P., Fischer J., Tian Z., Beyer B., Boehm K., et al. Does HistoScanning predict positive results in prostate biopsy? A retrospective analysis of 1,188 sextants of the prostate. World J. Urol. 2014; 32(4): 925–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1330-5

29. Glybochko P.V., Alyaev Y.G., Amosov A.V., Nir D., Winkler M., Ganzha M.T. Evaluation of prostate HistoScanning as a method for targeted biopsy in routine practice. Eur. Urol. 2017; 5(2): 179–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.07.001

30. Simmons L.A., Autier P., Zat’ura F., Braecman J., Peltier A., Romic A., et al. Detection, localisation and characterisation of prostate cancer by prostate HistoScanning(™). Br. J. Urol. 2012; 110(1): 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10734.x

31. Fedorova A.A., Amosov V.A., Govorov A.V., Zubarev A.V., Vasil’ev A.O., Prilepskaya E.A., et al. Prostate Histoscanning. Educational and Methodical Manual № 41 [Gistoskanirovanie predstatel’noy zhelezy. Metodicheskie rekomendatsii № 41]. Moscow: ABV-press; 2019. (in Russian)

32. Sivaraman A., Sanchez-Salas R., Barret E., Macek P., Validre P., Gallano M., et al. Prostate HistoScanning true targeting guided prostate biopsy: initial clinical experience. World J. Urol. 2014; 33(10): 1475–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1434-y

33. Javed S., Chadwick E., Edwards A.A., Beveridge S., Laing R., Bott S., et al. Does prostate HistoScanning™ play a role in detecting prostate cancer in routine clinical practice? Results from three independent studies. Br. J. Urol. 2014; 114(4): 541–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12568

34. Stroman L., Cathcart P., Lamb A., Challacombe B., Popert R. A cross-section of UK prostate cancer diagnostics during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) era – a shifting paradigm? Br. J. Urol. 2021; 127(1): 30–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15259