EMERGING NON-INVASIVE IMAGING TECHNIQUES IN DIAGNOSIS AND MONITORING OF UROLOGICAL DISORDERS: A NARRATIVE REVIEW

Authors

  • Sadia Hameed Isra University, Hyderabad, Pakistan. Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9212-8321
  • Fatima Tu Zohra Iqra National University, Peshawar, Pakistan. Author
  • Nabeel Ahmad Peshawar Institute of Cardiology, Peshawar, Pakistan. Author
  • Javeria Ahmed Aga Khan University and Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan. Author
  • Iraj Fatima khan University of Management and Technology (UMT), Lahore, Pakistan. Author
  • Sameea Areeb Al Khidmat Hospital, Sahiwal, Pakistan. Author https://orcid.org/0009-0008-1831-9817

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.71000/5fet7e53

Keywords:

Urology, Non-Invasive Imaging, Multiparametric MRI, Elastography, Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound, Narrative Review

Abstract

Background: Urological disorders such as prostate cancer, bladder tumors, and renal masses are among the most prevalent and clinically significant conditions worldwide. Accurate and early diagnosis is essential to optimize treatment outcomes and reduce patient morbidity. Traditional imaging methods, although valuable, have limitations related to radiation exposure, invasiveness, and diagnostic precision. Recent advances in non-invasive imaging modalities offer safer, more precise alternatives that enhance clinical decision-making.

Objective: This narrative review aims to explore and synthesize recent advancements in non-invasive imaging techniques, particularly multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), and shear wave elastography, and evaluate their role in diagnosing and monitoring major urological conditions.

Main Discussion Points: The review discusses the utility of mpMRI beyond prostate cancer, its emerging role in bladder and renal imaging, and how elastography enhances lesion characterization by assessing tissue stiffness. CEUS is examined for its real-time vascular imaging capabilities, especially in renal cyst classification and intravesical tumor detection. Additionally, the integration of artificial intelligence into imaging interpretation and the standardization challenges across institutions are explored. Current limitations, including variable protocols, accessibility issues, and lack of long-term outcome data, are also addressed.

Conclusion: Non-invasive imaging technologies are reshaping urological diagnostics by offering high diagnostic accuracy with minimal patient risk. While evidence supports their growing clinical utility, further multicenter studies and protocol standardization are necessary to ensure their widespread and effective adoption in routine practice.

Author Biographies

  • Sadia Hameed, Isra University, Hyderabad, Pakistan.

    MBBS Final Year Student, Isra University, Hyderabad, Pakistan.

  • Fatima Tu Zohra , Iqra National University, Peshawar, Pakistan.

    Assistant Professor, Iqra National University, Peshawar, Pakistan.

  • Nabeel Ahmad , Peshawar Institute of Cardiology, Peshawar, Pakistan.

    Clinical Technologist (Radiology), Peshawar Institute of Cardiology, Peshawar, Pakistan.

  • Javeria Ahmed, Aga Khan University and Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.

    Medical Officer (Surgery), Aga Khan University and Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.

  • Iraj Fatima khan , University of Management and Technology (UMT), Lahore, Pakistan.

    Sonographer, University of Management and Technology (UMT), Lahore, Pakistan.

  • Sameea Areeb, Al Khidmat Hospital, Sahiwal, Pakistan.

    Imaging Technologist (Ultrasound Assistant), Al Khidmat Hospital, Sahiwal, Pakistan.

References

Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209-249.

Richters A, Aben KK, Kiemeney LA. The global burden of urinary bladder cancer: an update. World J Urol. 2020;38(8):1895–1904.

Bikbov B, Purcell CA, Levey AS, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of chronic kidney disease, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2020;395(10225):709-733.

Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE, et al. MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(10):917–928.

Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1: 2019 update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2. Eur Urol. 2020;76(3):340-351.

Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, et al. Shear-wave elastography for detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020;214(5):W293-W301.

Piscaglia F, Bolondi L. The safety of Sonovue in abdominal applications: retrospective analysis of 23188 investigations. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2020;46(9):2365–2372.

Wang H, Wang Z, Chen J, et al. Clinical applications of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in kidney diseases: a comprehensive review. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8:639926.

Barrett T, Paulson ES, Barentsz JO, et al. Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: Magnetic resonance imaging vs standard care. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6(5):761–768.

Cantiello F, Cicione A, Salonia A, et al. Clinical use of multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis, staging, and management of bladder cancer: state-of-the-art review. Eur Urol Focus. 2021;7(2):297–311.

Panebianco V, Narumi Y, Altun E, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for bladder cancer: development of VI-RADS. Eur Urol. 2020;77(3):276–287.

Witjes JA, Bruins HM, Cathomas R, et al. Clinical utility of bladder mpMRI using VI-RADS: a multicenter prospective trial. J Urol. 2023;209(5):1008–1016.

Wang X, Shao P, Li M, et al. Diagnostic performance of mpMRI for renal tumor subtyping: a prospective multicenter study. Radiology. 2022;303(2):363–372.

Barr RG, Cosgrove D, Brock M, et al. WFUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography: Part 2: Prostate. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2021;47(1):91–102.

El-Diasty T, Abou El-Ghar ME, Refaie HF, et al. Use of shear wave elastography in chronic obstructive uropathy: correlation with renal function. Clin Radiol. 2022;77(1):e1–e8.

Guo L, Xu HX, Xie XY, et al. CEUS versus CT for diagnosis of renal cystic lesions: a multicenter comparative study. Eur Radiol. 2021;31(5):3365–3373.

Zhang X, Wang Y, Wu P, et al. Intravesical contrast-enhanced ultrasound for detection of superficial bladder cancer. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2023;49(1):145–153.

Mehralivand S, Lay N, Harmon S, et al. Radiomics and machine learning for prostate cancer diagnosis using mpMRI: a multi-institutional study. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2021;53(2):641–651.

Liu Z, Zhang X, Jiang Q, et al. Deep learning-based bladder tumor segmentation on multiparametric MRI: performance and clinical feasibility. Front Oncol. 2022;12:805402.

He L, Huang Y, Lu Q, et al. Quantitative MRI for differentiating renal tumor subtypes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Radiol. 2024;65(2):123–133.

Saita A, Elia R, Rossi S, et al. MRI-Targeted versus Systematic Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Detection: Long-term Outcomes from a Prospective Cohort. J Urol. 2022;208(2):303–311.

Lebacle C, Bataille S, Machat S, et al. Evolving Role of CEUS in Urological Guidelines: An Update from the European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound. Eur Urol Focus. 2021;7(3):488–495.

Polanec SH, Helbich TH, Bickel H, et al. Clinical Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Radiology: Prospective Evaluation in Urogenital Imaging. Radiology: Artificial Intelligence. 2023;5(2):e220229.

Ghai S, Van der Kwast TH, Sood R, et al. Prospective Multicenter Trial of Shear Wave Elastography for Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2020;46(12):3324–3332.

Tamhane A, Rathi M, Deshmukh A, et al. Implementation of Point-of-Care Ultrasound in Resource-Limited Urological Settings: A Feasibility Study. Int J Urol. 2024;31(1):59–65.

Downloads

Published

2025-10-12