Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Novel non-MRI imaging techniques for primary diagnosis of prostate cancer: micro-ultrasound, contrast-enhanced ultrasound, elastography, multiparametric ultrasound, and PSMA PET/CT



Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) provides enhanced diagnostic accuracy in the detection of prostate cancer, but is not devoid of limitations. Given the recent evolution of non-MRI imaging techniques, this critical review of the literature aimed at summarizing the available evidence on ultrasound-based and nuclear medicine imaging technologies in the initial diagnosis of PCa.


Three databases (PubMed®, Web of Science™, and Scopus®) were queried for studies examining their diagnostic performance in the primary diagnosis of PCa, weighted against a histological confirmation of PCa diagnosis, using a free-text protocol. Retrospective and prospective studies, both comparative and non-comparative, systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) were included. Based on authors’ expert opinion, studies were selected, data extracted, and results qualitatively described.


Micro-ultrasound (micro-US) appears as an appealing diagnostic strategy given its high accuracy in detection of PCa, apparently non-inferior to mpMRI. The use of multiparametric US (mpUS) likely gives an advantage in terms of effectiveness coming from the combination of different modalities, especially when certain modalities are combined. Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT may represent a whole-body, one-step approach for appropriate diagnosis and staging of PCa. The direct relationship between lesions avidity of radiotracers and histopathologic and prognostic features, and its valid diagnostic performance represents appealing characteristics. However, intrinsic limits of each of these techniques exist and further research is needed before definitively considering them reliable tools for accurate PCa diagnosis. Other novel technologies, such as elastography and multiparametric US, currently relies on a limited number of studies, and therefore evidence about them remains preliminary.


Evidence on the role of non-MRI imaging options in the primary diagnosis of PCa is steadily building up. This testifies a growing interest towards novel technologies that might allow overcoming some of the limitations of current gold standard MRI imaging.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout


  1. Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, Claudon M, Roy C, Mège-Lechevallier F, et al. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:100–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1767–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Wei JT, Barocas D, Carlsson S, Coakley F, Eggener S, Etzioni R, et al. Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline Part I: Prostate Cancer Screening. J Urol [Internet]. 2023 Apr;101097JU0000000000003491. Available from:

  4. Mottet N, Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Eberli D, De Meerleer G, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer 2023. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Milan 2023. ISBN 978-94-92671-19-6. [Internet]. [cited 2023 May 23]. Available from:

  5. Radtke JP, Teber D, Hohenfellner MR, Hadaschik BA. The current and future role of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer detection and management. Transl Androl Urol. 2015;4:326–41.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Stabile A, Giganti F, Rosenkrantz AB, Taneja SS, Villeirs G, Gill IS, et al. Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions. Nat Rev Urol Nat Res. 2020;17:41–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Santoro AA, Di Gianfrancesco L, Racioppi M, Pinto F, Palermo G, Sacco E, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: Lights and shadows. Urologia J 2021;88:280–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Beerlage HP, Aarnink RG, Ruijter E, Witjes JA, Wijkstra H, Van De Kaa CA, et al. Correlation of transrectal ultrasound, computer analysis of transrectal ultrasound and histopathology of radical prostatectomy specimen. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis [Internet]. 2001;56–62. Available from:

  9. Calace FP, Napolitano L, Arcaniolo D, Stizzo M, Barone B, Crocetto F, et al. Micro-Ultrasound in the Diagnosis and Staging of Prostate and Bladder Cancer: A Comprehensive Review. 58, Medicina (Lithuania). MDPI; 2022.

  10. Correas JM, Halpern EJ, Barr RG, Ghai S, Walz J, Bodard S, et al. Advanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2021;39:661–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Combes AD, Palma CA, Calopedos R, Wen L, Woo H, Fulham M, et al. PSMA PET-CT in the Diagnosis and Staging of Prostate Cancer. 12, Diagnostics. MDPI; 2022.

  12. Bukavina L, Luckenbaugh AN, Hofman MS, Hope T, Kamran SC, Murphy DG, et al. Incorporating Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography in Management Decisions for Men with Newly Diagnosed or Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer. European Urology. Elsevier B.V; 2022.

  13. Ghai S, Eure G, Fradet V, Hyndman ME, McGrath T, Wodlinger B, et al. Assessing cancer risk on novel 29 MHz micro-ultrasound images of the prostate: creation of the micro-ultrasound protocol for prostate risk identification. J Urol. 2016;196:562–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kaneko M, Lenon MSL, Storino Ramacciotti L, Medina LG, Sayegh AS, La Riva Rincon A, et al. Multiparametric ultrasound of prostate: role in prostate cancer diagnosis. 14, Therapeutic Advances in Urology. SAGE Publications Inc.; 2022.

  15. Pavlovich CP, Cornish TC, Mullins JK, Fradin J, Mettee LZ, Connor JT, et al. High-resolution transrectal ultrasound: Pilot study of a novel technique for imaging clinically localized prostate cancer. Urologic Oncol: Semin Original Investig. 2014;32:34.e27–34.e32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Avolio PP, Lughezzani G, Fasulo V, Maffei D, Sanchez-Salas R, Paciotti M, et al. Assessing the role of high-resolution microultrasound among naïve patients with negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and a persistently high suspicion of Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2023;47:73–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pavlovich CP, Hyndman ME, Eure G, Ghai S, Caumartin Y, Herget E, et al. A multi-institutional randomized controlled trial comparing first-generation transrectal high-resolution micro-ultrasound with conventional frequency transrectal ultrasound for prostate biopsy. British Journal of Urology International. 2021;126–33.

  18. Dariane C, Ploussard G, Barret E, Beauval JB, Brureau L, Créhange G, et al. Micro-ultrasound-guided biopsies versus systematic biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol. 2022;41:641–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lughezzani G, Maffei D, Saita A, Paciotti M, Diana P, Buffi NM, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of microultrasound in patients with a suspicion of prostate cancer at magnetic resonance imaging: a single-institutional prospective study. Eur Urol Focus 2021;7:1019–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Klotz L, Lughezzani G, Maffei D, Sánchez A, Pereira JG, Staerman F, et al. Comparison of micro-ultrasound and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: A multicenter, prospective analysis. Can Urological Assoc J. 2020;15:E11–6.

    Google Scholar 

  21. You C, Li X, Du Y, Peng L, Wang H, Zhang X, et al. The microultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol Mary Ann Liebert Inc. 2022;36:394–402.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sountoulides P, Pyrgidis N, Polyzos SA, Mykoniatis I, Asouhidou E, Papatsoris A, et al. Micro-ultrasound-guided vs multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2021;205:1254–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhang M, Wang R, Wu Y, Jing J, Chen S, Zhang G, et al. Micro-ultrasound imaging for accuracy of diagnosis in clinically significant prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Front Oncol. 2019;9:1368.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Avolio PP, Fasulo V, Sanchez-Salas R, Maffei D, Frego N, Lazzeri M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI- and microultrasound-targeted biopsy in biopsy-naïve patients with a PI-RADS 5 lesion: a single-institutional study. World J Urol. 2023.

  25. Leen E, Averkiou M, Arditi M, Burns P, Bokor D, Gauthier T, et al. Dynamic contrast enhanced ultrasound assessment of the vascular effects of novel therapeutics in early stage trials. Eur Radio. 2012;22:1442–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Zhao HX, Xia CX, Yin HX, Guo N, Zhu Q. The value and limitations of contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasonography for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:e641-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Carpagnano FA, Eusebi L, Carriero S, Giannubilo W, Bartelli F, Guglielmi G. Prostate Cancer Ultrasound: Is Still a Valid Tool?. Curr Radiol Rep. 2021;9:7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Frauscher F, Klauser A, Volgger H, Halpern EJ, Pallwein L, Steiner H, et al. Comparison Of Contrast Enhanced Color Doppler Targeted Biopsy With Conventional Systematic Biopsy: Impact On Prostate Cancer Detection. J Urol. 2002;167:1648–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Taverna G, Morandi G, Seveso M, Giusti G, Benetti A, Colombo P, et al. Colour Doppler and microbubble contrast agent ultrasonography do not improve cancer detection rate in transrectal systematic prostate biopsy sampling. BJU Int. 2011;108:1723–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mannaerts CK, Engelbrecht MRW, Postema AW, van Kollenburg RAA, Hoeks CMA, Savci-Heijink CD, et al. Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve men: direct comparison of systematic biopsy, multiparametric MRI- and contrast-ultrasound-dispersion imaging-targeted biopsy. BJU Int. 2020;126:481–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cochlin DL, Ganatra RH, Griffiths DFR. Elastography in the detection of prostatic cancer. Clin Radio. 2002;57:1014–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yoo JW, Koo KC, Chung BH, Lee KS. Role of the elastography strain ratio using transrectal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer. Sci Rep. 2022;12.

  33. Hwang SII, Lee HJ, Lee SE, et al. Elastographic strain index in the evaluation of focal lesions detected with transrectal sonography of the prostate gland. J Ultrasound Med. 2016;35:899–904.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Zhang Y, Tang J, Li YM, Fei X, Lv FQ, He EH, et al. Differentiation of prostate cancer from benign lesions using strain index of transrectal real-time tissue elastography. Eur J Radio. 2012;81:857–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Zhu YC, Shan J, Zhang Y, Jiang Q, Wang YB, Deng SH, et al. Strain elastography-targeted biopsy: Does prostate volume affect prostate cancer detection? Med Sci Monit. 2019;25:8836–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Kanagaraju V, Ashlyin PVK, Elango N, Devanand B. Role of transrectal ultrasound elastography in the diagnosis of prostate carcinoma. J Med Ultrasound. 2020;28:173–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Sang L, Wang XM, Xu DY, Cai YF. Accuracy of shear wave elastography for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: A meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2017;7.

  38. Anbarasan T, Wei C, Bamber JC, Barr RG, Nabi G. Characterisation of prostate lesions using transrectal shear wave elastography (SWE) ultrasound imaging: A systematic review. 13, Cancers. MDPI AG; 2021. 1–15.

  39. Xiang LH, Fang Y, Wan J, Xu G, Yao MH, Ding SS, et al. Shear-wave elastography: role in clinically significant prostate cancer with false-negative magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radio. 2019;29:6682–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Fu S, Tang Y, Tan S, Zhao Y, Cui L. Diagnostic value of transrectal shear wave elastography for prostate cancer detection in peripheral zone: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. J Endourol. 2020;34:558–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Jeon SS, Kim CK, Park SY, Chung JH, Kang M, Sung HH, et al. Utility of two-dimensional shear wave elastography for the prediction of prostate cancer: a preliminary study. Ultrasonography. 2023.

  42. Dai WB, Xu J, Yu B, Chen L, Chen Y, Zhan J, et al. Correlation of stiffness of prostate cancer measured by shear wave elastography with grade group: a preliminary study. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2021;47:288–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Mannaerts CK, Wildeboer RR, Remmers S, Van Kollenburg RAA, Kajtazovic A, Hagemann J, et al. Multiparametric ultrasound for prostate cancer detection and localization: correlation of b-mode, shear wave elastography and contrast enhanced ultrasound with radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2019;202:1166–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Grey ADR, Scott R, Shah B, Acher P, Liyanage S, Pavlou M, et al. Multiparametric ultrasound versus multiparametric MRI to diagnose prostate cancer (CADMUS): a prospective, multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study [Internet]. 23, 2022. Available from:

  45. Zhang M, Tang J, Luo Y, Wang Y, Wu M, Memmott B, et al. Diagnostic performance of multiparametric transrectal ultrasound in localized prostate cancer: A comparative study with magnetic resonance imaging. J Ultrasound Med. 2019;38:1823–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Drudi FM, Cantisani V, Angelini F, Ciccariello M, Messineo D, Ettorre E, et al. Multiparametric MRI versus multiparametric US in the detection of prostate cancer. Anticancer Res. 2019;39:3101–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Mapelli P, Picchio M. Initial prostate cancer diagnosis and disease staging - The role of choline-PET-CT. 12, Nature Reviews Urology. Nature Publishing Group; 2015. 510–8.

  48. Liu IJ, Zafar MB, Lai YH, Segall GM, Terris MK. Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography Studies In Diagnosis And Staging Of Clinically Organ-Confined Prostate Cancer [Internet]. 2001. Available from:

  49. Cañizares G, Gonzalez-Montoro A, Freire M, Lamprou E, Barrio J, Sanchez F, et al. Pilot performance of a dedicated prostate PET suitable for diagnosis and biopsy guidance. EJNMMI Phys. 2020;7.

  50. Caracciolo M, Castello A, Urso L, Borgia F, Ortolan N, Uccelli L, et al. The Role of [68Ga]PSMA PET/CT for Clinical Suspicion of Prostate Cancer in Patients with or without Previous Negative Biopsy: A Systematic Review. 14, Cancers. MDPI; 2022.

  51. Eiber M, Herrmann K, Calais J, Hadaschik B, Giesel FL, Hartenbach M, et al. Prostate cancer molecular imaging standardized evaluation (PROMISE): Proposed miTNM classification for the interpretation of PSMA-ligand PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:469–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Emmett L, Papa N, Buteau J, Ho B, Liu V, Roberts M, et al. The PRIMARY score: using intraprostatic 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT patterns to optimize prostate cancer diagnosis. J Nucl Med. 2022;63:1644–50.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Chandra P, Rajaian S, Krishnamurthy K, Murugasen L, Chandran G, Kumar JS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of prebiopsy Ga-68 PSMA PET/CT in detecting primary prostate carcinomas with prostate-specific antigen <50 ng/ml. Indian. J Nucl Med. 2020;35:283–90.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Liu C, Liu T, Zhang Z, Zhang N, Du P, Yang Y, et al. 68ga-psma pet/ct combined with pet/ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy can diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer in men with previous negative biopsy results. J Nucl Med. 2020;61:1314–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Donato P, Morton A, Yaxley J, Ranasinghe S, Teloken PE, Kyle S, et al. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT better characterises localised prostate cancer after MRI and transperineal prostate biopsy: Is 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT guided biopsy the future? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47:1843–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Lopci E, Lughezzani G, Castello A, Saita A, Colombo P, Hurle R, et al. Prospective evaluation of 68Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand positron emission tomography/computed tomography in primary prostate cancer diagnosis. Eur Urol Focus 2021;7:764–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Emmett L, Buteau J, Papa N, Moon D, Thompson J, Roberts MJ, et al. The additive diagnostic value of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging triage in the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PRIMARY): A prospective multicentre study [Formula presented]. Eur Urol. 2021;80:682–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Zhao Y, Simpson BS, Morka N, Freeman A, Kirkham A, Kelly D, et al. Comparison of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron-Emission Tomography Imaging in Primary Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. 14, Cancers. MDPI; 2022.

  59. Manfredi C, Fernández-Pascual E, Arcaniolo D, Emberton M, Sanchez-Salas R, Artigas Guix C, et al. The Role of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Primary and Recurrent Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Eur Urology Focus. 8. Elsevier B.V; 2022. p. 942–57.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Klotz L, Andriole G, Cash H, Cooperberg M, Crawford ED, Emberton M, et al. Optimization of prostate biopsy - Micro-Ultrasound versus MRI (OPTIMUM): A 3-arm randomized controlled trial evaluating the role of 29 MHz micro-ultrasound in guiding prostate biopsy in men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer. Contemp Clin Trials. 2022;112.

  61. Lopci E, Lazzeri M, Colombo P, Casale P, Buffi NM, Saita A, et al. Diagnostic Performance and Clinical Impact of PSMA PET/CT versus mpMRI in Patients with a High Suspicion of Prostate Cancer and Previously Negative Biopsy: A Prospective Trial (PROSPET-BX). Urologia Internationalis. S. Karger AG; 2023.

  62. Meissner VH, Rauscher I, Schwamborn K, Neumann J, Miller G, Weber W, et al. Radical prostatectomy without prior biopsy following multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography. Eur Urol. 2022;82:156–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Tokas T, Grabski B, Paul U, Bäurle L, Loch T. A 12-year follow-up of ANNA/C-TRUS image-targeted biopsies in patients suspicious for prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2018;36:699–704.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Wang X, Xie Y, Zheng X, Liu B, Chen H, Li J, et al. A prospective multi-center randomized comparative trial evaluating outcomes of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided 12-core systematic biopsy, mpMRI-targeted 12-core biopsy, and artificial intelligence ultrasound of prostate (AIUSP) 6-core targeted biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. World J Urol. 2022.

  65. Secasan CC, Onchis D, Bardan R, Cumpanas A, Novacescu D, Botoca C, et al. Artificial intelligence system for predicting prostate cancer lesions from shear wave elastography measurements. Curr Oncol. 2022;29:4212–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Holzgreve A, Unterrainer M, Calais J, Adams T, Oprea-Lager DE, Goffin K, et al. Is PSMA PET/CT cost-effective for the primary staging in prostate cancer? First results for European countries and the USA based on the proPSMA trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023 Jul;

Download references


This research received no external funding

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Riccardo Autorino.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ditonno, F., Franco, A., Manfredi, C. et al. Novel non-MRI imaging techniques for primary diagnosis of prostate cancer: micro-ultrasound, contrast-enhanced ultrasound, elastography, multiparametric ultrasound, and PSMA PET/CT. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links