Journal of medical imaging and radiation sciences · 2025
Use of ultrasound elastography for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: A systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Asif Muhammad Farrukh, Farooq Syed Muhammad Yousaf, Gilani Syed Amir, Bilal Saima, Moazzam Muhammad, Niazi Yasmeen
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Ultrasound elastography (USE) has emerged as a promising non-invasive tool for prostate cancer (PCa) detection. This systematic review evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of USE techniques, including shear-wave elastography (SWE) and strain elastography (SE), in detecting PCa.
METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive literature search across PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct, and Web of Science (2015-2025). Studies assessing USE diagnostic performance with histopathological confirmation (biopsy/prostatectomy) were included. Data on sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were extracted. Quality assessment was performed using QUADAS-2.
RESULTS: Among 18 studies, SWE demonstrated sensitivities of 58%-96.8% and specificities of 67.8%-98%, while SE showed 74.2%-100% sensitivity and 73.7%-93.8% specificity. Optimal stiffness cutoffs varied (41.0-82.6 kPa for SWE; strain ratio 1.9-5.5 for SE). Multiparametric approaches combining USE with MRI or targeted biopsy improved diagnostic accuracy (e.g., sensitivity 90.1%, specificity 80.6% for transrectal real-time elastography). USE correlated with Gleason scores, aiding in risk stratification.
CONCLUSIONS: USE exhibits strong diagnostic performance for PCa, particularly when integrated with multiparametric imaging. Standardization of protocols and further validation in large cohorts are needed to optimize clinical adoption.
METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive literature search across PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct, and Web of Science (2015-2025). Studies assessing USE diagnostic performance with histopathological confirmation (biopsy/prostatectomy) were included. Data on sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were extracted. Quality assessment was performed using QUADAS-2.
RESULTS: Among 18 studies, SWE demonstrated sensitivities of 58%-96.8% and specificities of 67.8%-98%, while SE showed 74.2%-100% sensitivity and 73.7%-93.8% specificity. Optimal stiffness cutoffs varied (41.0-82.6 kPa for SWE; strain ratio 1.9-5.5 for SE). Multiparametric approaches combining USE with MRI or targeted biopsy improved diagnostic accuracy (e.g., sensitivity 90.1%, specificity 80.6% for transrectal real-time elastography). USE correlated with Gleason scores, aiding in risk stratification.
CONCLUSIONS: USE exhibits strong diagnostic performance for PCa, particularly when integrated with multiparametric imaging. Standardization of protocols and further validation in large cohorts are needed to optimize clinical adoption.