Controversial evidence for the use of HistoScanning™ in the detection of prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION: Given the growing body of literature since first description of HistoScanning™ in 2008, there is an unmet need for a contemporary review.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Studies addressing HistoScanning™ in prostate cancer (PCa) were considered to be included in the current review. To identify eligible reports, we relied on a bibliographic search of PubMed database conducted in January 2015.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twelve original articles were available to be included in the current review. The existing evidence was reviewed according to the three following topics: prediction of final pathology at radical prostatectomy, prediction of disease stage and application at prostate biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS: High sensitivity and specificity for HistoScanning™ to predict cancer foci ≥0.5 ml at final pathology were achieved in the pilot study. These results were questioned, when HistoScanning™ derived tumor volume does not correlate with final pathology results. Additionally, HistoScanning™ was not able to provide reliable staging information according to neither extraprostatic extension, nor seminal vesicle invasion prior to radical prostatectomy. Controversy data also exist according to the use of HistoScanning™ at prostate biopsy. Specifically, most encouraging results were recorded in a small patient cohort. Conversely, HistoScanning™ achieved poor prediction of positive biopsies, when relying on larger studies. Finally, the combination of HistoScanning™ and conventional ultrasound achieved lower detection rates than systematic biopsy. Currently, evidence is at best weak and questions whether HistoScanning™ might improve the detection of PCa.