ArticleJournal of ultrasonography2016
Inability of shear-wave elastography to distinguish malignant from benign prostate tissue - a comparison of biopsy, whole-mount sectioning and shear-wave elastography.
Article in Journal of ultrasonography, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characterisation of Prostate Lesions Using Transrectal Shear Wave Elastography (SWE) Ultrasound Imaging: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2021Review
- Ultrasound elastography in characterization of prostatic lesions: correlation with histopathological findings.The British journal of radiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study was designed to assess the possible usefulness of shear-wave elastography in differentiating between benign and malignant tissue in prostate neoplasia. PATIENTS AND
methodsA total of 120 prostate tissue samples were obtained from 10 patients treated by radical prostatectomy and investigated pre-operatively by ultrasound elastography followed by directed biopsy. After resection, whole-mount sectioning and histological examination was performed. The predictions based on shear-wave elastography were compared with biopsy and histological results.
resultsThe comparison between the results of shear-wave elastography and those of biopsy was performed by receiver operating characteristic analysis, which suggested an optimum cut-off tissue elasticity value of 50 kPa, in agreement with earlier studies aimed at distinguishing between benign and malignant tissue. However, the diagnostic selectivity (and thus the diagnostic power) was poor (area under the curve 0.527, which hardly differs from the value of 0.500 that would correspond to a complete lack of predictive power); furthermore, application of this cut-off value to the samples led to a sensitivity of only 74% and a specificity of only 43%. An analogous comparison between the results of shear-wave elastography and those of whole-mount histology, which itself is more reliable than biopsy, gave an even poorer diagnostic selectivity (sensitivity of 62%, specificity of 35%). Meaningful association with Gleason score was not found for D'Amico risk groups (
conclusionsThe (negative) findings of this investigation add to the dissonance among results of studies investigating the possible value of shear-wave elastography as a diagnostic tool to identify malignant neoplasia. There is a clear need for further research to elucidate the diversity of study results and to identify the usefulness, if any, of the method in question.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.