Non-invasive electromagnetic detection of prostate cancer: efficiency analysis

Introduction. Early diagnosis of cancer is one of the most important international strategies. Malignant and healthy tissues differ in the interaction with electromagnetic waves. Pilot studies show a potential perspective for non-invasive analysis of electromagnetic anisotropy in biological tissues.

Objective. To assess the diagnostic importance of the electromagnetic detection of prostate cancer (PCa) within the prospective study.

Materials & methods. One hundred and twenty-four patients were included to undergo a prostate biopsy, transurethral prostate resection, or radical prostatectomy. The investigators did not have information on their clinical details. Research technique: the probe was applied to the perineal region, turning it in three planes. A reduction of the 465 MHz band below a threshold was fixed and was considered suspect for PCa. The results of electromagnetic evaluation were compared with the findings of a pathomorphological study after biopsy or surgery.

Results. Fourty-seven true-positive and 21 true-negative results were detected, 20 false-negative and 46 false-positive (follow-up group as potentially true-positive group). The overall sensitivity was 82%, specificity – 31%. The positive and negative predictive values were 73% and 62%, respectively. The accuracy of the method was 54%.

Conclusion. Early PCa stage could be a reason for many false-positive results and low specificity, as a result. PCa detection is significantly reduced with lesions less than 3 mm, therefore patients with false-positive results were placed in the follow-up group. Patients’ examination with the TRIMprob TM («Galileo Avionica» SpA, Torino, Italy) could increase the early PCa detection at the screening. The research is currently ongoing. 

1. Grassi L, Spiegel D, Riba M. Advancing psychosocial care in cancer patients. F1000Res. 2017;6:2083. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.11902.1

2. Rebello RJ, Oing C, Knudsen KE, Loeb S, Johnson DC, Reiter RE, Gillessen S, Van der Kwast T, Bristow RG. Prostate cancer. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2021;7(1):9. DOI: 10.1038/s41572-020-00243-0

3. Cree IA, Uttley L, Buckley Woods H, Kikuchi H, Reiman A, Harnan S, Whiteman BL, Philips ST, Messenger M, Cox A, Teare D, Sheils O, Shaw J; UK Early Cancer Detection Consortium. The evidence base for circulating tumour DNA blood-based biomarkers for the early detection of cancer: a systematic mapping review. BMC Cancer. 2017;17(1):697. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-017-3693-7

4. Carlsson SV, Vickers AJ. Screening for Prostate Cancer. Med Clin North Am. 2020;104(6):1051-1062. DOI: 10.1016/j.mcna.2020.08.007

5. EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam 2022. ISBN 978-94-92671-16-5. https://uroweb.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer

6. Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Månsson M, Tammela TLJ, Zappa M, Nelen V, Kwiatkowski M, Lujan M, Carlsson SV, Talala KM, Lilja H, Denis LJ, Recker F, Paez A, Puliti D, Villers A, Rebillard X, Kilpeläinen TP, Stenman UH, Godtman RA, Stinesen Kollberg K, Moss SM, Kujala P, Taari K, Huber A, van der Kwast T, Heijnsdijk EA, Bangma C, De Koning HJ, Schröder FH, Auvinen A; ERSPC investigators. A 16-yr Follow-up of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2019;76(1):43-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.009

7. Ablin RJ. The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendation against prostate-specific antigen screening--point. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21(3):391-4. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-0058

8. Fricke H, Morse S. The Electric Capacity of Tumors of the Breast. The Journal of Cancer Research. 1926;(10):340-376.

9. Joines WT. Frequency-dependent absorption of electromagnetic energy in biological tissue. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1984;31(1):17-20. DOI: 10.1109/TBME.1984.325365

10. Vedruccio C, Meessen A. EM cancer detection by means of non-linear resonance interaction. Paper presented at: PIERS 2004 - Progress in Electromagnetics Research Symposium, Extended Papers Proceedings; March 28-31, 2004; Pisa, Italy. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=a5f1f7bc2da7bf91a827ce7e752ba6a798a1d6b8

11. Vedruccio С, Vedruccio CR. Non invasive radiofrequency diagnostics of cancer. The Bioscanner — Trimprob technology and clinical applications. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2011;329:012038. DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/329/1/012038

12. Balma M, Lacquaniti S, Fasolis G, Autino E. The potential of trimprob in the diagnosis of prostatic neoplasia: method of use and results of a study of healthy subjects. 2015. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2330.0964.

13. Tubaro A, De Nunzio C, Trucchi A, Stoppacciaro A, Miano L. The electromagnetic detection of prostatic cancer: evaluation of diagnostic accuracy. Urology. 2008;72(2):340-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.11.058

14. Bellorofonte C, Vedruccio C, Tombolini P, Ruoppolo M, Tubaro A. Non-invasive detection of prostate cancer by electromagnetic interaction. Eur Urol. 2005;47(1):29-37; discussion 37. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2004.09.012

15. Gokce O, Sanli O, Salmaslioglu A, Tunaci A, Ozsoy C, Ozcan F. Tissue Resonance Interaction Method (TRIMprob) has the potential to be used alongside the recognized tests in the screening protocols for prostate cancer. Int J Urol. 2009;16(6):580-3. DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2009.02306.x

16. Da Pozzo L, Scattoni V, Mazzoccoli B, Rigatti P, Manferrari F, Martorana G, Pietropaolo F, Belgrano E, Prezioso D, Lotti T, Villari D, Nicita G. Tissue-resonance interaction method for the noninvasive diagnosis of prostate cancer: analysis of a multicentre clinical evaluation. BJU Int. 2007;100(5):1055-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07133.x

17. Orjan Martinsen, Sverre Grimnes, Orjan Martinsen, Sverre Grimnes. Bioimpedance and Bioelectricity Basics, 2nd Edition. San Diego: Academic Press Inc; 2008. ISBN: 9780123740045.

18. Tejedor L, Gómez Modet S, Manchev L, Aditya Parikesit A, editors. Breast Cancer and Breast Reconstruction. London: IntechOpen; 2020. ISBN: 978-1-78984-551-8; DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.81453.