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。
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.