经直肠超声引导与手指引导前列腺活检的前列腺癌检出率比较

Rizki Abri Laksono, Tanaya Ghinorawa, A. Danurdoro
{"title":"经直肠超声引导与手指引导前列腺活检的前列腺癌检出率比较","authors":"Rizki Abri Laksono, Tanaya Ghinorawa, A. Danurdoro","doi":"10.33371/ijoc.v17i2.689","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Prostate biopsy was used to diagnose and establish a therapy for prostate cancer (PCa). Instead of using conventional finger-guided prostate biopsy (FGPB) to approximate prostatic architecture, transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsies of the prostate (TRUSGB) have become more popular nowadays because of offer direct visualization. However, the lack of availability of transrectal ultrasound probes in less-developed regions raises concerns regarding the need to diagnose patients with PCa. Moreover, different conclusions have been found from prior studies that examined the efficacy of both methods. This study aims to compare the accuracy of TRUSGB to FGPB in prostate cancer.. Methods: This study was done retrospectively from 50 medical records of PCa in the Urology Division of Sardjito Hospital from January 2009 until December 2013. Patients’ age, PSA value, digital rectal examination, and histopathological examination were analyzed. Results: The mean age was 65.18 ± 7.76 years in FGPB and 67.52 ± 10.79 years in TRUSGB group. The median PSA was 65.01 (range: 16.33–114.72) ng/mL in FGPB and 71.75 (range: 19.86– 123.47) ng/mL in TRUSGB. Abnormal DRE was found in 75.75% of patients in FGPB group and 70.58% in TRUSGB. Comparable cancer detection rates were found in the FGPB and TRUSGB groups (45.45% vs. 52.94%) (p = 0.136).Conclusions: The cancer detection rates for FGPB and TRUSGB procedures are comparable. This supports using FGPB as the first-line diagnostic technique, especially in low-resource situations where ultrasonography is unavailable.","PeriodicalId":13489,"journal":{"name":"Indonesian Journal of Cancer","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Prostate Cancer Detection Rate of Transrectal Ultrasonography Guided versus Finger Guided Prostate Biopsy\",\"authors\":\"Rizki Abri Laksono, Tanaya Ghinorawa, A. Danurdoro\",\"doi\":\"10.33371/ijoc.v17i2.689\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Prostate biopsy was used to diagnose and establish a therapy for prostate cancer (PCa). Instead of using conventional finger-guided prostate biopsy (FGPB) to approximate prostatic architecture, transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsies of the prostate (TRUSGB) have become more popular nowadays because of offer direct visualization. However, the lack of availability of transrectal ultrasound probes in less-developed regions raises concerns regarding the need to diagnose patients with PCa. Moreover, different conclusions have been found from prior studies that examined the efficacy of both methods. This study aims to compare the accuracy of TRUSGB to FGPB in prostate cancer.. Methods: This study was done retrospectively from 50 medical records of PCa in the Urology Division of Sardjito Hospital from January 2009 until December 2013. Patients’ age, PSA value, digital rectal examination, and histopathological examination were analyzed. Results: The mean age was 65.18 ± 7.76 years in FGPB and 67.52 ± 10.79 years in TRUSGB group. The median PSA was 65.01 (range: 16.33–114.72) ng/mL in FGPB and 71.75 (range: 19.86– 123.47) ng/mL in TRUSGB. Abnormal DRE was found in 75.75% of patients in FGPB group and 70.58% in TRUSGB. Comparable cancer detection rates were found in the FGPB and TRUSGB groups (45.45% vs. 52.94%) (p = 0.136).Conclusions: The cancer detection rates for FGPB and TRUSGB procedures are comparable. This supports using FGPB as the first-line diagnostic technique, especially in low-resource situations where ultrasonography is unavailable.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13489,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indonesian Journal of Cancer\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indonesian Journal of Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33371/ijoc.v17i2.689\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indonesian Journal of Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33371/ijoc.v17i2.689","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:前列腺活检用于诊断前列腺癌(PCa)并建立治疗方法。代替传统的手指引导前列腺活检(FGPB)来接近前列腺结构,经直肠超声引导前列腺活检(TRUSGB)由于提供直接的可视化而变得越来越流行。然而,在欠发达地区,经直肠超声探头的缺乏引起了人们对前列腺癌诊断需求的关注。此外,从先前的研究中发现了不同的结论,这些研究检查了这两种方法的有效性。本研究旨在比较TRUSGB与FGPB在前列腺癌诊断中的准确性。方法:回顾性分析Sardjito医院泌尿科2009年1月至2013年12月的50例PCa病例。分析患者年龄、PSA值、直肠指检及组织病理学检查。结果:FGPB组平均年龄65.18±7.76岁,TRUSGB组平均年龄67.52±10.79岁。FGPB的中位PSA为65.01(范围:16.33-114.72)ng/mL, TRUSGB为71.75(范围:19.86 - 123.47)ng/mL。FGPB组DRE异常占75.75%,TRUSGB组DRE异常占70.58%。FGPB组和TRUSGB组的癌症检出率相当(45.45% vs. 52.94%) (p = 0.136)。结论:FGPB和TRUSGB的癌症检出率是相当的。这支持使用FGPB作为一线诊断技术,特别是在缺乏超声检查资源的情况下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparative Prostate Cancer Detection Rate of Transrectal Ultrasonography Guided versus Finger Guided Prostate Biopsy
Background: Prostate biopsy was used to diagnose and establish a therapy for prostate cancer (PCa). Instead of using conventional finger-guided prostate biopsy (FGPB) to approximate prostatic architecture, transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsies of the prostate (TRUSGB) have become more popular nowadays because of offer direct visualization. However, the lack of availability of transrectal ultrasound probes in less-developed regions raises concerns regarding the need to diagnose patients with PCa. Moreover, different conclusions have been found from prior studies that examined the efficacy of both methods. This study aims to compare the accuracy of TRUSGB to FGPB in prostate cancer.. Methods: This study was done retrospectively from 50 medical records of PCa in the Urology Division of Sardjito Hospital from January 2009 until December 2013. Patients’ age, PSA value, digital rectal examination, and histopathological examination were analyzed. Results: The mean age was 65.18 ± 7.76 years in FGPB and 67.52 ± 10.79 years in TRUSGB group. The median PSA was 65.01 (range: 16.33–114.72) ng/mL in FGPB and 71.75 (range: 19.86– 123.47) ng/mL in TRUSGB. Abnormal DRE was found in 75.75% of patients in FGPB group and 70.58% in TRUSGB. Comparable cancer detection rates were found in the FGPB and TRUSGB groups (45.45% vs. 52.94%) (p = 0.136).Conclusions: The cancer detection rates for FGPB and TRUSGB procedures are comparable. This supports using FGPB as the first-line diagnostic technique, especially in low-resource situations where ultrasonography is unavailable.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Role of Isocitrate Dehydrogenase as a Serum Biomarker in Detecting Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Literature Review Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Mammography Interpretation by Breast Radiologists, Non-Breast Radiologists, and Senior Residents Factors Influencing Distress and Coping Strategies Among Patients with Metastatic Spinal Tumor at Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital Major Microbiota Profile of Breast Cancer From Faecal Specimen and Cancerous Breast Tissue: A Comprehensive Systematic Review Recent Technological Advancements in Respiratory Gating Devices
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1