RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Transperineal prostate biopsy (TPB) offers an alternative to transrectal prostate biopsy (TRB) for prostate cancer diagnosis. However, TPB may result in additional disposable and capital equipment costs, which can limit implementation within urology practice. Herein, we report the initial experience of a novel TPB technique within a tertiary referral center in Taiwan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of all men undergoing prostate biopsy January to October in 2021 was performed. Both biopsy techniques were performed with the same setting using the convex-convex array ultrasound probe under local anesthesia alone or with the addition of sedation using double free-hand technique. Complications within 30 days and cancer detection rate (CDR) were compared between the groups. RESULTS: A total of 118 biopsies were included for final analysis. Eleven patients received systematic biopsy with additional MRI-targeted biopsy (TB) cores with all performed via a transperineal approach. The TPB group (n = 47) and TRB group (n = 58) had similar CDR after excluding TB cores (46.8% vs. 44.8%, p = 0.675). General complication rates for TPB were significantly lower than in the TRB group (27.7% vs. 46.6%, p = 0.047). No patients undergoing TPB had infectious complications, where five episodes were recorded in the TRB group (p = 0.114). CONCLUSIONS: TPB performed with convex-convex ultrasound probe and double free-hand technique is safe, feasible, cost-effective, and demonstrates equivalent CDR to TRB. Its use may eliminate infectious hospitalizations while minimizing the need for additional capital in the adoption of TPB.
Asunto(s)
Próstata , Neoplasias de la Próstata , Masculino , Humanos , Próstata/diagnóstico por imagen , Próstata/patología , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Biopsia/efectos adversos , Neoplasias de la Próstata/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias de la Próstata/patología , Ultrasonografía , Biopsia Guiada por Imagen/efectos adversos , Biopsia Guiada por Imagen/métodosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND/AIM: Nuclear respiratory factor 1 (NRF1) is a key mediator of genes involved in mitochondrial biogenesis and the respiratory chain; however, its role in bladder cancer remains unknown. Transitional cell carcinoma, also known as urothelial cell carcinoma, is the most common type of bladder cancer resistant to chemotherapy. An established high-grade and invasive transitional cell carcinoma line from patients with urinary bladder cancer, known as T24, has been extensively used in cancer research. In this study, we aimed to investigate the mechanisms through which NRF1 regulates proliferation and cell migration of bladder cancer cells using the T24 cell line. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cells were transfected with plasmid cloning DNA for NRF1 to evaluate the effect of NRF1 overexpression on bladder cancer cells. Western blot was used to examine epithelial and mesenchymal markers (E-cadherin and α-smooth muscle actin), transcriptional regulators for epithelial-mesenchymal transition (snail family transcriptional repressors), components of transforming growth factor-ß1/SMADs signaling, high-mobility group box 1 (HMGB1), and receptor for advanced glycation end-products (RAGE). The in situ expression of E-cadherin, α-smooth muscle actin and SMAD7 was determined using immunofluorescence staining. Cell migration capacity was assessed by wound-healing assay. RESULTS: Transfection with NRF1 expression vector repressed the migration capacity of bladder cancer cells, diminishing HMGB1/RAGE expression and reducing transforming growth factor ß-associated epithelial-mesenchymal transition in T24 cells. CONCLUSION: Therapeutic avenues that increase NRF1 expression may serve as an adjunct to conventional treatments for bladder cancer.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Células Transicionales , Proteína HMGB1 , Neoplasias de la Vejiga Urinaria , Humanos , Carcinoma de Células Transicionales/patología , Proteína HMGB1/genética , Proteína HMGB1/metabolismo , Factor Nuclear 1 de Respiración/genética , Receptor para Productos Finales de Glicación Avanzada , Actinas , Neoplasias de la Vejiga Urinaria/patología , Cadherinas/metabolismo , Transición Epitelial-Mesenquimal/genética , Movimiento Celular/genética , Línea Celular TumoralRESUMEN
AIM: There is no unified diagnostic standard for female bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) to date. The Solomon-Greenwell (S-G) nomogram was developed to indicate the probability of female BOO by performing a pressure-flow study, and the equation of the BOO Index in females (BOOIf) is PdetQmax - 2.2 × Qmax. We aimed to validate the diagnostic value of the S-G nomogram in female BOO. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a videourodynamic study (VUDS) cohort in our institution. Between 2015 and 2020, 192 female patients underwent VUDS for lower urinary tract dysfunction (LUTD). We excluded patients with neurogenic LUTD (n = 30) and patients with no detrusor contraction and/or no void during VUDS (n = 51). The diagnosis of female BOO was based on the Nitti criteria (radiological evidence of urethral narrowing in the presence of a sustained detrusor pressure). BOOIf was calculated for each enrolled patient. The cutoff values of BOOIf were set at <0, >5, and >18 as the original S-G nomogram proposed. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of each threshold to diagnose female BOO were calculated. RESULTS: Out of the 111 enrolled patients, 43 (38.7%) were diagnosed as having female BOO by VUDS. The most common etiology of female BOO was dysfunctional voiding (19/43, 44.2%), followed by primary bladder neck obstruction (PBNO, 15/43, 34.9%). When the cutoff value was <0 (low probability of obstruction), the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 90%, 91%, 92%, and 87%, respectively; when >5 (likely obstructed), the values were 79%, 96%, 92%, and 88%, respectively; and when >18 (obstruction almost certain), the values were 47%, 100%, 100%, and 75%, respectively. Fourteen of 15 PBNO patients would be classified as non-BOO if the cutoff value was >18. Six PBNO patients would not be diagnosed as female BOO if the threshold was >5. CONCLUSION: A BOOIf <0 showed good diagnostic value for excluding female BOO. A BOOIf >18 had perfect specificity and PPV for diagnosing female BOO. However, the sensitivity of the S-G nomogram for detecting female BOO was unsatisfactory, especially for patients with PBNO. VUDS remains the examination of choice for patients with suspected female BOO.