Elasticity as a biomarker for prostate cancer: a systematic review

Daniel W. Good, Grant D. Stewart, Steven Hammer, Paul Scanlan, Wenmiao Shu, Simon Phipps, Robert Reuben, Alan S. McNeill

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

34 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

To systematically review the range of methods available for assessing elasticity in the prostate and to examine its use as a biomarker for prostate cancer.
A systematic review of the electronic database PubMed was performed up to December 2012.
All relevant studies assessing the use of elasticity as a biomarker for prostate cancer were included except those not studying human prostates or reporting a sensitivity, specificity or quantitative elasticity value.
There has been much interest in the use of elasticity in the detection of prostate cancer and there have been many publications using various methods of detection. The most common method of assessment is an imaging method, called sonoelastography. Further imaging methods include ultrasound (US), three-dimensional US and magnetic resonance elastography. These methods are reviewed for sensitivity and specificity.
The other method of assessment is the mechanical method. These use quantitative elasticity values to differentiate benign from malignant areas of the prostate. This method of assessment has shown that the elasticity changes for differing Gleason grades and T stages of disease within the prostate. Quantitative elasticity values offer the potential of using ‘threshold’ elasticity values under which the prostate is benign.
Tissue elasticity has great potential as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for prostate cancer and can be assessed using various methods. Currently transrectal sonoelastography has the most evidence supporting its use in clinical practice.
LanguageEnglish
Pages523-534
Number of pages12
JournalBJU International
Volume113
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 30 Apr 2014

Fingerprint

Elasticity
Prostatic Neoplasms
Biomarkers
Prostate
Elasticity Imaging Techniques
Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed
Publications
Databases

Keywords

  • elasticity
  • biomarker
  • prostate cancer
  • sonoelastography

Cite this

Good, D. W., Stewart, G. D., Hammer, S., Scanlan, P., Shu, W., Phipps, S., ... McNeill, A. S. (2014). Elasticity as a biomarker for prostate cancer: a systematic review. BJU International, 113(4), 523-534. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12236
Good, Daniel W. ; Stewart, Grant D. ; Hammer, Steven ; Scanlan, Paul ; Shu, Wenmiao ; Phipps, Simon ; Reuben, Robert ; McNeill, Alan S. / Elasticity as a biomarker for prostate cancer : a systematic review. In: BJU International. 2014 ; Vol. 113, No. 4. pp. 523-534.
@article{418572266cf040ff89ed7dd3b10a6752,
title = "Elasticity as a biomarker for prostate cancer: a systematic review",
abstract = "To systematically review the range of methods available for assessing elasticity in the prostate and to examine its use as a biomarker for prostate cancer. A systematic review of the electronic database PubMed was performed up to December 2012. All relevant studies assessing the use of elasticity as a biomarker for prostate cancer were included except those not studying human prostates or reporting a sensitivity, specificity or quantitative elasticity value. There has been much interest in the use of elasticity in the detection of prostate cancer and there have been many publications using various methods of detection. The most common method of assessment is an imaging method, called sonoelastography. Further imaging methods include ultrasound (US), three-dimensional US and magnetic resonance elastography. These methods are reviewed for sensitivity and specificity. The other method of assessment is the mechanical method. These use quantitative elasticity values to differentiate benign from malignant areas of the prostate. This method of assessment has shown that the elasticity changes for differing Gleason grades and T stages of disease within the prostate. Quantitative elasticity values offer the potential of using ‘threshold’ elasticity values under which the prostate is benign. Tissue elasticity has great potential as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for prostate cancer and can be assessed using various methods. Currently transrectal sonoelastography has the most evidence supporting its use in clinical practice.",
keywords = "elasticity, biomarker, prostate cancer, sonoelastography",
author = "Good, {Daniel W.} and Stewart, {Grant D.} and Steven Hammer and Paul Scanlan and Wenmiao Shu and Simon Phipps and Robert Reuben and McNeill, {Alan S.}",
year = "2014",
month = "4",
day = "30",
doi = "10.1111/bju.12236",
language = "English",
volume = "113",
pages = "523--534",
journal = "BJU International",
issn = "1464-4096",
number = "4",

}

Good, DW, Stewart, GD, Hammer, S, Scanlan, P, Shu, W, Phipps, S, Reuben, R & McNeill, AS 2014, 'Elasticity as a biomarker for prostate cancer: a systematic review' BJU International, vol. 113, no. 4, pp. 523-534. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12236

Elasticity as a biomarker for prostate cancer : a systematic review. / Good, Daniel W.; Stewart, Grant D.; Hammer, Steven; Scanlan, Paul; Shu, Wenmiao; Phipps, Simon; Reuben, Robert; McNeill, Alan S.

In: BJU International, Vol. 113, No. 4, 30.04.2014, p. 523-534.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Elasticity as a biomarker for prostate cancer

T2 - BJU International

AU - Good, Daniel W.

AU - Stewart, Grant D.

AU - Hammer, Steven

AU - Scanlan, Paul

AU - Shu, Wenmiao

AU - Phipps, Simon

AU - Reuben, Robert

AU - McNeill, Alan S.

PY - 2014/4/30

Y1 - 2014/4/30

N2 - To systematically review the range of methods available for assessing elasticity in the prostate and to examine its use as a biomarker for prostate cancer. A systematic review of the electronic database PubMed was performed up to December 2012. All relevant studies assessing the use of elasticity as a biomarker for prostate cancer were included except those not studying human prostates or reporting a sensitivity, specificity or quantitative elasticity value. There has been much interest in the use of elasticity in the detection of prostate cancer and there have been many publications using various methods of detection. The most common method of assessment is an imaging method, called sonoelastography. Further imaging methods include ultrasound (US), three-dimensional US and magnetic resonance elastography. These methods are reviewed for sensitivity and specificity. The other method of assessment is the mechanical method. These use quantitative elasticity values to differentiate benign from malignant areas of the prostate. This method of assessment has shown that the elasticity changes for differing Gleason grades and T stages of disease within the prostate. Quantitative elasticity values offer the potential of using ‘threshold’ elasticity values under which the prostate is benign. Tissue elasticity has great potential as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for prostate cancer and can be assessed using various methods. Currently transrectal sonoelastography has the most evidence supporting its use in clinical practice.

AB - To systematically review the range of methods available for assessing elasticity in the prostate and to examine its use as a biomarker for prostate cancer. A systematic review of the electronic database PubMed was performed up to December 2012. All relevant studies assessing the use of elasticity as a biomarker for prostate cancer were included except those not studying human prostates or reporting a sensitivity, specificity or quantitative elasticity value. There has been much interest in the use of elasticity in the detection of prostate cancer and there have been many publications using various methods of detection. The most common method of assessment is an imaging method, called sonoelastography. Further imaging methods include ultrasound (US), three-dimensional US and magnetic resonance elastography. These methods are reviewed for sensitivity and specificity. The other method of assessment is the mechanical method. These use quantitative elasticity values to differentiate benign from malignant areas of the prostate. This method of assessment has shown that the elasticity changes for differing Gleason grades and T stages of disease within the prostate. Quantitative elasticity values offer the potential of using ‘threshold’ elasticity values under which the prostate is benign. Tissue elasticity has great potential as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for prostate cancer and can be assessed using various methods. Currently transrectal sonoelastography has the most evidence supporting its use in clinical practice.

KW - elasticity

KW - biomarker

KW - prostate cancer

KW - sonoelastography

U2 - 10.1111/bju.12236

DO - 10.1111/bju.12236

M3 - Article

VL - 113

SP - 523

EP - 534

JO - BJU International

JF - BJU International

SN - 1464-4096

IS - 4

ER -

Good DW, Stewart GD, Hammer S, Scanlan P, Shu W, Phipps S et al. Elasticity as a biomarker for prostate cancer: a systematic review. BJU International. 2014 Apr 30;113(4):523-534. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12236