Korean J Urol.  2013 Jan;54(1):11-14.

Does the Presence of Hypoechoic Lesions on Transrectal Ultrasound Suggest a Poor Prognosis for Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer?

• You HW
• Jung SB
• Jeon SH
• Chang SG
• Kim JI
• Lim JW

Abstract

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to investigate the value of hypoechoic lesions on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) as a prognostic factor for patients with localized prostate cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The patients consisted of 71 patients with pT2N0M0 disease following radical prostatectomy between 2002 and 2008. The group with hypoechoic lesions was labeled group 1, whereas the group without hypoechoic lesions was labeled group 2. The presence of hypoechoic lesions on preoperative TRUS was analyzed as a prognostic factor along with several parameters, including preoperative factors and pathologic factors. The biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS) rate was compared between the two groups according to the presence of hypoechoic lesions on TRUS.
RESULTS
A total of 35 patients had hypoechoic lesions on TRUS, whereas 36 had no hypoechoic lesions. Preoperative baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. In the univariate analysis, BPFS showed significant differences according to the presence of hypoechoic lesions on TRUS and the preoperative prostate-specific antigen level. The BPFS rates over the first 24 months were 97.0% in group 1 and 97.1% in group 2; however, the difference in the BPFS rate over 48 months significantly widened to 75.3% compared with 91.7%, respectively. Despite this finding, no significant independent prognostic factor for BPFS was found on multivariate analysis in this patient cohort.
CONCLUSIONS
The presence of hypoechoic lesions on TRUS may suggest worse prognostic characteristics in pT2 prostate cancer. Further studies involving larger subject populations are needed to corroborate the significance of the presence of hypoechoic lesions as a prognostic factor.

Keyword

Prognosis; Prostate neoplasms; Ultrasonography

MeSH Terms

Disease-Free Survival
Humans
Multivariate Analysis
Prognosis
Prostate
Prostate-Specific Antigen
Prostatectomy
Prostatic Neoplasms
Prostate-Specific Antigen

Figure

• 

  FIG. 1 The hypoechoic group had an overall shorter progression-free survival period than did the nonhypoechoic group.

Reference

1. Yoo KH, Jeon SH, Lim JW, Chang SG. Significance of hypoechoic lesion and increased blood flow on transrectal ultrasound for prostate cancer detection. Korean J Urol. 2007. 48:138–142.

2. Djavan B, Margreiter M. Biopsy standards for detection of prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2007. 25:11–17.

3. Ohori M, Egawa S, Shinohara K, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. Detection of microscopic extracapsular extension prior to radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Br J Urol. 1994. 74:72–79.

4. Ohori M, Wheeler TM, Greene DR, Scardino PT. Comparison of the pathologic features and DNA ploidy value of prostate cancers detectable by sonography and by palpation. Prostate. 1993. 23:271–281.

5. Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, D'Amico AV, Dmochowski RR, et al. Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J Urol. 2007. 177:540–545.

6. Ohori M, Kattan MW, Utsunomiya T, Suyama K, Scardino PT, Wheeler TM. Do impalpable stage T1c prostate cancers visible on ultrasound differ from those not visible? J Urol. 2003. 169:964–968.

7. Kattan MW, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. Postoperative nomogram for disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999. 17:1499–1507.

8. Eggener SE, Scardino PT, Walsh PC, Han M, Partin AW, Trock BJ, et al. Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2011. 185:869–875.

9. Roehl KA, Han M, Ramos CG, Antenor JA, Catalona WJ. Cancer progression and survival rates following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy in 3,478 consecutive patients: long-term results. J Urol. 2004. 172:910–914.

10. Caso JR, Tsivian M, Mouraviev V, Polascik TJ, Moul JW. Pathological T2 sub-divisions as a prognostic factor in the biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2010. 106:1623–1627.

11. Tradonsky A, Rubin T, Beck R, Ring B, Seitz R, Mair S. A search for reliable molecular markers of prognosis in prostate cancer: a study of 240 cases. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012. 137:918–930.

12. Chin JL, Reiter RE. Molecular markers and prostate cancer prognosis. Clin Prostate Cancer. 2004. 3:157–164.

13. Nelson BA, Shappell SB, Chang SS, Wells N, Farnham SB, Smith JA Jr, et al. Tumour volume is an independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen recurrence in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2006. 97:1169–1172.

14. Okotie OT, Roehl KA, Han M, Loeb S, Gashti SN, Catalona WJ. Characteristics of prostate cancer detected by digital rectal examination only. Urology. 2007. 70:1117–1120.