Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2005
Follow-up of the transrectal ultrasonographic features of the prostate after biopsy: does any ultrasonographically detectable lesion form secondary to the first biopsy?
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Ozden Eriz, Turgut Ahmet Tuncay, Yaman Onder, Gülpinar Omer, Baltaci Sümer
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the transrectal ultrasonographic features of the prostate after biopsy and to find out whether any ultrasonographically detectable lesion forms secondary to biopsy.
METHODS: Prebiopsy transrectal ultrasonographic findings in 60 consecutive patients who underwent repeated biopsies were evaluated. Detected lesions that were not defined before the first biopsy were considered postbiopsy-formed lesions and were sampled during the second biopsy. All transrectal ultrasonographically detected lesions were correlated with histopathologic results in the same locations.
RESULTS: There were 7 (11.6%) patients with new hypoechoic lesions formed after the first biopsy. Histopathologic analysis of postbiopsy-detected lesions showed that 38.5% were cancer; 62.5% of the detected benign lesions were prostatitis foci.
CONCLUSIONS: Prostate biopsy does not give rise to formation of fibrotic scar tissue in the peripheral zone. Most postbiopsy-detected lesions are prostatitis foci, but all hypoechoic lesions must be sampled during repeated prostate biopsies because of the 38.5% cancer detection rate.
METHODS: Prebiopsy transrectal ultrasonographic findings in 60 consecutive patients who underwent repeated biopsies were evaluated. Detected lesions that were not defined before the first biopsy were considered postbiopsy-formed lesions and were sampled during the second biopsy. All transrectal ultrasonographically detected lesions were correlated with histopathologic results in the same locations.
RESULTS: There were 7 (11.6%) patients with new hypoechoic lesions formed after the first biopsy. Histopathologic analysis of postbiopsy-detected lesions showed that 38.5% were cancer; 62.5% of the detected benign lesions were prostatitis foci.
CONCLUSIONS: Prostate biopsy does not give rise to formation of fibrotic scar tissue in the peripheral zone. Most postbiopsy-detected lesions are prostatitis foci, but all hypoechoic lesions must be sampled during repeated prostate biopsies because of the 38.5% cancer detection rate.