Revista internacional de andrologia · 2018
[Study of anogenital distance as a diagnostic tool for prostate cancer].
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.
Oñate-Celdrán Julián, Arense-Gonzalo Julián J, Mendiola Jaime, Samper-Mateo Paula, Sánchez-Rodríguez Carlos, García-Escudero Damián, Torres-Roca Marcos, Vilchez-Costas Ana, Adoamnei Evdochia, Torres-Cantero Alberto M
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The distance from the genitals to the anus (anogenital distance [AGD]) reflects androgen concentration during prenatal development in mammals. At the present time, there is only one study suggesting the relationship between AGD and risk of prostate cancer (CaP). The goal of this study was to assess the performance and clinical utility of AGD, as a biomarker of prenatal androgenic milieu, and risk of CaP in a larger population, in CaP diagnosis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A case-control study was conducted on 260 men seen in a hospital outpatient clinic where underwent a physical and andrological examination and completed a brief questionnaire. CaP patients were confirmed by biopsy of the tumor. Controls were men without CaP seen in the urology outpatient clinic for routine examinations. Two variants of AGD (from the anus to the posterior base of the scrotum [AGDAS] and to the cephalad insertion of the penis [AGDAP]) were measured. Parametric and non-parametric tests and receiver operating characteristic (COR) analyses were used to determine relationships between AGD and presence of CaP.
RESULTS: The highest area under the curve (0.69; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.78 and 0.69; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.77) was obtained for the Gleason=7 subgroup with the AGDAS and AGDAP measurement, with a sensitivity and specificity of 83% and 55%, and 91% and 41%, the predictive positive value of 39% and 35% and negative value of 90% and 93% respectively.
CONCLUSION: AGD may be a useful clinical tool for the CaP diagnosis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A case-control study was conducted on 260 men seen in a hospital outpatient clinic where underwent a physical and andrological examination and completed a brief questionnaire. CaP patients were confirmed by biopsy of the tumor. Controls were men without CaP seen in the urology outpatient clinic for routine examinations. Two variants of AGD (from the anus to the posterior base of the scrotum [AGDAS] and to the cephalad insertion of the penis [AGDAP]) were measured. Parametric and non-parametric tests and receiver operating characteristic (COR) analyses were used to determine relationships between AGD and presence of CaP.
RESULTS: The highest area under the curve (0.69; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.78 and 0.69; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.77) was obtained for the Gleason=7 subgroup with the AGDAS and AGDAP measurement, with a sensitivity and specificity of 83% and 55%, and 91% and 41%, the predictive positive value of 39% and 35% and negative value of 90% and 93% respectively.
CONCLUSION: AGD may be a useful clinical tool for the CaP diagnosis.