HistoScanning^TM vs. standard multifocal biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis: a comparison of diagnostic methods

Introduction. Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common malignant diseases. The prostate biopsy is the verification standard of PCa. The multifocal biopsy under ultrasound (US) guidance shows high rate of false negative results. As a result, the new diagnostic methods have been discovered. Histoscanning^TM is the new method of visualization. Histoscanning^TM is a new prostate tissue differentiation technology based on US backscatter analysis. The software analyses tissue density builds a 3D model of the prostate and indicates the localisation of PCa-suspect foci that are targeted for biopsy.

Objective. To rate the diagnostic accuracy of Histoscanning^TM and identify the benefits of targeted prostate biopsy compared to the multifocal biopsy.

Matherials & methods. A prospective study conducted between Jan 2017 and May 2021 is presented. Ninety-hundred nine patients who underwent transrectal prostate biopsy in Pirogov City Clinical Hospital No. 1 were included. Control group A — 443 men after standard multifocal biopsy, comparison group B — 506 men after combined standard multifocal biopsy together with targeted biopsy using Histoscanning^TM.

Results. In the control group, prostate cancer was detected in 33.4% of patients, while in the group using the Histoscanning^TM device it was found in 39.7%. ISUP 1 high-grade PCa were more frequent in group В — 71.1%, in group А— 52.7%. Isolated lesion of targeted biopsy specimens was found only in 9 patients (4.5%) of the group В. Combined lesion of standard and targeted biopsy specimens was more frequent and was detected in 121 patients. However, in 72 patients no atypical cells were detected in targeted biopsy specimens when prostate cancer was verified in standard biopsy specimens. The efficacy of Histoscanning^TM was comparable to standard biopsy for prostate volumes > 60 cс.

Conclusion. The use of Histoscanning^TM improves the diagnosis of PCa, mainly due to the ISUP 1. Performing only targeted cores is impractical due to the high percentage of false negative results. Combined prostate biopsy with mandatory sampling of targeted biopsy cores along with standard biopsy specimens is indicated. The diagnostic accuracy of Histoscanning^TM showed the best results with a prostate volume <60 cc.

1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(1):7-33. Erratum in: CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(4):359. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21654.

2. Kaprin A.D., Starinskiyi V.V., Shakhzadova A.O., eds. Zlokachestvennye novoobrazovaniya v Rossii v 2020 godu (zabolevaemost' i smertnost') [Malignant tumors in Russia in 2020 (morbidity and mortality)]. Moscow: MNIOI im. P.A. Gertsena, 2021. (In Russian).

3. Keln A.A., Zyryanov A.V., Surikov A.S., Ponomarev A.V., Kupchin A.V., Znobischev V.G., Salnikov M.A. Fusion prostate biopsy in patients with previous negative standard prostate biopsy. Urology Herald. 2017;5(4):39-46. (In Russian). DOI: 10.21886/2308-6424-2017-5-4-39-46

4. Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, Catto J, Emberton M, Nam R, Rosario DJ, Scattoni V, Lotan Y. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):876-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.049

5. Ukimura O, Coleman JA, de la Taille A, Emberton M, Epstein JI, Freedland SJ, Giannarini G, Kibel AS, Montironi R, Ploussard G, Roobol MJ, Scattoni V, Jones JS. Contemporary role of systematic prostate biopsies: indications, techniques, and implications for patient care. Eur Urol. 2013;63(2):214-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.09.033

6. Gevorkyan A.R., Molodtsov M.S., Aleksandrov E.V. Prostate cancer diagnosis as part of high-tech advanced outpatient medical care. Urology Herald. 2023;11(1):26-33. (In Russian). DOI: 10.21886/2308-6424-2023-11-1-26-33

7. Lucidarme O, Akakpo JP, Granberg S, Sideri M, Levavi H, Schneider A, Autier P, Nir D, Bleiberg H; Ovarian HistoScanning Clinical Study Group. A new computer-aided diagnostic tool for non-invasive characterisation of malignant ovarian masses: results of a multicentre validation study. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(8):1822-30. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-010-1750-6

8. Braeckman J, Autier P, Garbar C, Marichal MP, Soviany C, Nir R, Nir D, Michielsen D, Bleiberg H, Egevad L, Emberton M. Computer-aided ultrasonography (HistoScanning): a novel technology for locating and characterizing prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2008;101(3):293-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07232.x

9. Glybochko P.V., Alyaev Yu.G., Amosov A.V., Krupinov G.E., Obukhov A.A., Ganzha T.M., Amosov N.A. Experience with a Histoscanning apparatus used in the early diagnosis of prostate cancer. Cancer Urology. 2012;8(1):72-76. (In Russian). DOI: 10.17650/1726-9776-2012-8-1-872-878

10. Vezelis Alvydas A, Platkevicius G, Kincius KM, Naruseviciute I, Ulys A, Jankevicius F. Prostate 3D ultrasound-guided imaging device (HistoScanning) performance detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. J BUON. 2020;25(1):460-463. PMID: 32277669

11. Morozov A, Kozlov V, Rivas JG, Teoh JY, Bezrukov E, Amosov A, Barret E, Taratkin M, Salomon G, Herrmann TRW, Gozen A, Enikeev D; collaboration between ESUT, ESUI and Uro-technology WP of the Young Academic Urologists. A systematic review and meta-analysis of Histoscanning™ in prostate cancer diagnostics. World J Urol. 2021;39(10):3733-3740. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-021-03684-8