Urologia internationalis · 2012
Development of a new optical device and its feasibility in prostate cancer detection.
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.
Panteliou Sofia D, Tzortzis Vassilios, Anagnostopoulos George T, Sunaric M M, Sarris J, Hatzimouratidis Konstantinos, Hatzichristou Dimitris
Аннотация
AIM: To develop a new optical device (prostate optical device, POD) for assessment of prostate tissue stiffness and evaluate its sensitivity and specificity in prostate cancer detection.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: POD was tested in prostate phantoms and in patients with indications for prostate biopsy. Its sensitivity and specificity were compared to digital rectal examination (DRE) and transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS).
RESULTS: POD was able to identify stiffness differences on each prostate phantom. 45 patients were included in the study. Sensitivity of TRUS (40%) was significantly lower to POD (85.7%) and DRE (74.3%) (p = 0.000 and p = 0.003, respectively). There was no statistical difference between POD and DRE (p = 0.221). The combination of POD and DRE showed the highest sensitivity (88.6%), positive predictive value (81.6%), and negative predictive value (42.9%) among all diagnostic tests.
CONCLUSIONS: POD identified prostatic stiffness differences with the same sensitivity of DRE performed by an experienced urologist providing an objective indication for prostate biopsy and early prostate cancer detection.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: POD was tested in prostate phantoms and in patients with indications for prostate biopsy. Its sensitivity and specificity were compared to digital rectal examination (DRE) and transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS).
RESULTS: POD was able to identify stiffness differences on each prostate phantom. 45 patients were included in the study. Sensitivity of TRUS (40%) was significantly lower to POD (85.7%) and DRE (74.3%) (p = 0.000 and p = 0.003, respectively). There was no statistical difference between POD and DRE (p = 0.221). The combination of POD and DRE showed the highest sensitivity (88.6%), positive predictive value (81.6%), and negative predictive value (42.9%) among all diagnostic tests.
CONCLUSIONS: POD identified prostatic stiffness differences with the same sensitivity of DRE performed by an experienced urologist providing an objective indication for prostate biopsy and early prostate cancer detection.