Urology · 2007
Clinical implications of tumor size and local extent of primary prostatic lesions in prostate cancer patients with metastases: value of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in patients with metastases.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Nakashima Jun, Tanimoto Akihiro, Kikuchi Eiji, Miyajima Akira, Nakagawa Ken, Oya Mototsugu, Ohigashi Takashi, Murai Masaru
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical significance of local assessment by endorectal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in prostate cancer patients with metastases.
METHODS: The local extent and tumor size were determined by endorectal MRI in 95 prostate cancer patients with metastases, and their clinical implications were assessed.
RESULTS: The maximum diameter and tumor volume significantly correlated with the local extent of disease but not with extent of disease (EOD) on bone scan. In univariate analyses, EOD, serum prostate-specific antigen level, serum alkaline phosphatase level, and hemoglobin level were significantly associated with disease-specific survival, whereas tumor size and local extent of primary lesions were not. In a multivariate analysis EOD on bone scan was a significant prognostic factor.
CONCLUSIONS: Tumor size and local extent of the primary lesion estimated by endorectal MRI were not associated with disease-specific survival. Assessment of the primary lesion by endorectal MRI is of limited value in predicting the prognosis of prostate cancer patients with metastases.
METHODS: The local extent and tumor size were determined by endorectal MRI in 95 prostate cancer patients with metastases, and their clinical implications were assessed.
RESULTS: The maximum diameter and tumor volume significantly correlated with the local extent of disease but not with extent of disease (EOD) on bone scan. In univariate analyses, EOD, serum prostate-specific antigen level, serum alkaline phosphatase level, and hemoglobin level were significantly associated with disease-specific survival, whereas tumor size and local extent of primary lesions were not. In a multivariate analysis EOD on bone scan was a significant prognostic factor.
CONCLUSIONS: Tumor size and local extent of the primary lesion estimated by endorectal MRI were not associated with disease-specific survival. Assessment of the primary lesion by endorectal MRI is of limited value in predicting the prognosis of prostate cancer patients with metastases.