Urologia internationalis · 2016
Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsy for Cancer Detection: Performance of 2D-, 3D- and 3D-MRI Fusion Targeted Techniques.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Klein Jacques, de Górski Arachk, Benamran Daniel, Vallee Jean-Paul, De Perrot Thomas, Wirth Gregory J, Iselin Christophe E
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The study aimed to evaluate 3 different modalities of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsies (PBs; 2D-, 3D- and targeted 3D-TRUS with fusion to MRI - T3D). Primary end point was the detection rate of prostate cancer (PC). Secondary end point was the detection rate of insignificant PC according to the Epstein criteria.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Inclusion of 284 subsequent patients who underwent 2D-, 3D- or T3D PB from 2011 to 2015. All patients having PB for initial PC detection with a serum prostate-specific antigen value ≤20 ng/ml were included. Patients with T4 and/or clinical and/or radiological metastatic disease, so as these under active surveillance were excluded.
RESULTS: Patients with T3D PB had a significantly higher detection rate of PC (58 vs. 19% for 2D and 38% for 3D biopsies; p = 0.001), with no difference in Gleason score distribution (p = 0.644), as well as detection rate of low-risk cancers (p = 0.914). Main predictive factor for positive biopsies was the technique used, with respectively a 3- and 8-fold higher detection rate in the 3D- and T3D group. For T3D-PB, there was a significant correlation between radiological cancer suspicion (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Score) and cancer detection rate (p = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: T3D PB should be preferred over 2D PB and 3D PB in patients with suspected PC as it improves the cancer detection rate.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Inclusion of 284 subsequent patients who underwent 2D-, 3D- or T3D PB from 2011 to 2015. All patients having PB for initial PC detection with a serum prostate-specific antigen value ≤20 ng/ml were included. Patients with T4 and/or clinical and/or radiological metastatic disease, so as these under active surveillance were excluded.
RESULTS: Patients with T3D PB had a significantly higher detection rate of PC (58 vs. 19% for 2D and 38% for 3D biopsies; p = 0.001), with no difference in Gleason score distribution (p = 0.644), as well as detection rate of low-risk cancers (p = 0.914). Main predictive factor for positive biopsies was the technique used, with respectively a 3- and 8-fold higher detection rate in the 3D- and T3D group. For T3D-PB, there was a significant correlation between radiological cancer suspicion (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Score) and cancer detection rate (p = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: T3D PB should be preferred over 2D PB and 3D PB in patients with suspected PC as it improves the cancer detection rate.