Development of a new optical device and its feasibility in prostate cancer detection

Urologia Internationalis

Volumn 89, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 290-295

  Panteliou, Sofia D ^a   Tzortzis, Vassilios ^b   Anagnostopoulos, George T ^a   Sunaric, M M ^a   Sarris, J ^a   Hatzimouratidis, Konstantinos ^c   Hatzichristou, Dimitris ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PATRAS   (Greece)

^b UNIVERSITY OF THESSALY   (Greece)

^c ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI   (Greece)

Author keywords

Diagnosis; Prostate cancer; Prostate optical device

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DEVICES; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; IN VITRO STUDY; IN VIVO STUDY; MALE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE OPTICAL DEVICE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; UROLOGIST;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOPSY; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OPTICAL DEVICES; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UROLOGY;

EID: 84868203205     PISSN: 00421138     EISSN: 14230399     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000339966     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. American Cancer Society: Cancer Facts and Figures 2010. Atlanta, American Cancer Society, 2010.
2. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al: EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 61-71.
3. Richie JP, Catalona WJ, Ahmann FR, et al: Effect of patient age on early detection of prostate cancer with serum prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination. Urology 1993; 42: 365-374.
4. Holmstrom B, Johansson M, Bergh A, et al: Prostate-specific antigen for early detection of prostate cancer: longitudinal study. BMJ 2009; 339:b35370.
5. Spajic B, Eupic H, Tomas D, et al: The incidence of hyperechoic prostate cancer in transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy specimens. Urology 2007; 70: 734-737.
6. Cornud F, Belin X, Piron D, et al: Color Doppler-guided prostate biopsies in 591 patients with an elevated serum PSA level: impact on Gleason score for nonpalpable lesions. Urology 1997; 49: 709-715.
7. Cornud F, Hamida K, Flam T, et al: Endorectal color Doppler sonography and endorectal MR imaging features of nonpalpable prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175: 1161-1168.
8. Salomon G, Köllerman J, Thederan I, et al: Evaluation of prostate cancer detection with ultrasound real-time elastography: a comparison with step section pathological analysis after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 1354-1362.
9. Brock M, von Bodman C, Sommerer F, et al: Comparison of real-time elastography with grey-scale ultrasonography for detection of organ-confined prostate cancer and extracapsular extension: a prospective analysis using whole mount sections after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2011; 108:E217-E222.
10. Kapoor A, Mahajan G, Sidhu BS: Real-time elastography in the detection of prostate cancer in patients with raised PSA level. Ultrasound Med Biol 2011; 37: 1374-1381.
11. Panteliou SD, Sunaric MM, Sarris J, et al: Design of a device for the objective assessment of the mechanical properties of the prostate gland. Mechanics 2000, International Conference on Role of Mesomechanics for the Development of Science and Technology, Xi'an, June 13-16, 2000.
12. Tsai PS, Shah M: Shape from shading using linear approximation. Image Vision Comput J 1994; 12: 487-498.
13. Cochlin DL, Ganatra RH, Griffiths DF: Elastography in the detection of prostatic cancer. Clin Radiol 2002; 57: 1014-1020.
14. Catalona WJ, Richie JP, deKernion JB, et al: Comparison of digital rectal examination and serum prostate-specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer: results of a multicenter clinical trial of 6,630 men. J Urol 1994; 151: 1283-1290.
15. Sarvazyan AP: Computerized palpation is more sensitive than human finger. 12th International Symposium on Biomedical Measurements and Instrumentation, Dubrovnik, 1998, pp 523-524.
16. Omata S, Terunuma Y: New tactile sensor like the human hand and its applications. Sens Actuators 1992; 35: 9-15.
17. Constantinou CE, Omata S: Analysis of the relative biomechanical effects of a1 and a2 antagonists in modifying the compliance of the prostate and micturition parameters of the hormonally manipulated male rat. Neurourol Urodyn 1996; 15: 85-101.
18. Nava A, Mazza E, Furrer M, et al: In vivo mechanical characterization of human liver. Med Image Anal 2008; 12: 203-216.
19. Ahn B, Kim J: Measurement and characterization of soft tissue behavior with surface deformation and force response under large deformations. Med Image Anal 2010; 14: 138-148.
20. Ahn B, Kim J, Lorenzo I, et al: Mechanical property characterization of prostate cancer using a minimally motorized indenter in an ex vivo indentation experiment. Urology 2010; 76: 1007-1011.
21. Rosen J, Brown JD, De S, et al: Biomechanical properties of abdominal organs in vivo and postmortem under compression loads. J Biomech Eng 2008; 130: 1-17.
22. Valtorta D, Mazza E: Dynamic measurement of soft tissue viscoelastic properties with a torsional resonator device. Med Image Anal 2005; 9: 481-490.