Urologia · 2019
Comparison of prostate cancer detection rates between the Vienna nomogram and the 10-core biopsy protocol.
Сравнительное 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.
Arda Ersan, Demir Zafer, Yuksel Ilkan, Cek Mete
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the Vienna nomogram and the 10-core prostate biopsy protocol regarding whether there is superiority in prostate cancer detection.
METHODS: Between January and December 2012, a total of 215 patients applying to our outpatient clinic with lower urinary tract symptoms were evaluated, prospectively. Patients with a prostate-specific antigen level of 2.5-10 ng/mL and/or suspicious digital rectal examination were included in the study. Exclusion criteria were determined as recent pelvic radiotherapy, lower urinary tract surgery, history of acute urinary retention, or indwelling urinary catheter. Biopsies were taken systematically with at least 10 cores considering prostate volume and patient age. According to Vienna nomogram, in patients requiring 6- or 8-core biopsies, tissue sampling was completed to 10 cores (our standard protocol), whereas in patients requiring more than 10 cores additional tissue sampling was performed.
RESULTS: After the determination of inclusion/exclusion criteria, 170 patients were enrolled in our study. The median (min-max) age, prostate-specific antigen value, and prostate volume were 65 (48-86) years, 7.6 ng/dL (2.5-10), and 55 cc (17-150), respectively. Prostate cancer was detected in 49 (28.8%) patients with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy according to the Vienna nomogram. We found that our standard 10-core biopsy protocol would have diagnosed prostate cancer in 46 (27.1%) patients in the same study group showing no statistically significant difference (p > 0.005).
CONCLUSION: The findings of this study suggest that considering cancer detection rates no statistically significant differences were found between both methods. Further prospective research in this aspect is needed to define the ultimate prostate biopsy protocol.
METHODS: Between January and December 2012, a total of 215 patients applying to our outpatient clinic with lower urinary tract symptoms were evaluated, prospectively. Patients with a prostate-specific antigen level of 2.5-10 ng/mL and/or suspicious digital rectal examination were included in the study. Exclusion criteria were determined as recent pelvic radiotherapy, lower urinary tract surgery, history of acute urinary retention, or indwelling urinary catheter. Biopsies were taken systematically with at least 10 cores considering prostate volume and patient age. According to Vienna nomogram, in patients requiring 6- or 8-core biopsies, tissue sampling was completed to 10 cores (our standard protocol), whereas in patients requiring more than 10 cores additional tissue sampling was performed.
RESULTS: After the determination of inclusion/exclusion criteria, 170 patients were enrolled in our study. The median (min-max) age, prostate-specific antigen value, and prostate volume were 65 (48-86) years, 7.6 ng/dL (2.5-10), and 55 cc (17-150), respectively. Prostate cancer was detected in 49 (28.8%) patients with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy according to the Vienna nomogram. We found that our standard 10-core biopsy protocol would have diagnosed prostate cancer in 46 (27.1%) patients in the same study group showing no statistically significant difference (p > 0.005).
CONCLUSION: The findings of this study suggest that considering cancer detection rates no statistically significant differences were found between both methods. Further prospective research in this aspect is needed to define the ultimate prostate biopsy protocol.