Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
BJU Int ; 117(1): 80-6, 2016 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25099182

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) during the learning curve of radiologists using MRI targeted, transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) guided transperineal fusion biopsy (MTTP) for validation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective data on 340 men who underwent mpMRI (T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI) followed by MTTP prostate biopsy, was collected according to Ginsburg Study Group and Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy standards. MRI data were reported by two experienced radiologists and scored on a Likert scale. Biopsies were performed by consultant urologists not 'blinded' to the MRI result and men had both targeted and systematic sector biopsies, which were reviewed by a dedicated uropathologist. The cohorts were divided into groups representing five consecutive time intervals in the study. Sensitivity and specificity of positive MRI reports, prostate cancer detection by positive MRI, distribution of significant Gleason score and negative MRI with false negative for prostate cancer were calculated. Data were sequentially analysed and the learning curve was determined by comparing the first and last group. RESULTS: We detected a positive mpMRI in 64 patients from Group A (91%) and 52 patients from Group E (74%). The prostate cancer detection rate on mpMRI increased from 42% (27/64) in Group A to 81% (42/52) in Group E (P < 0.001). The prostate cancer detection rate by targeted biopsy increased from 27% (17/64) in Group A to 63% (33/52) in Group E (P < 0.001). The negative predictive value of MRI for significant cancer (>Gleason 3+3) was 88.9% in Group E compared with 66.6% in Group A. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate an improvement in detection of prostate cancer for MRI reporting over time, suggesting a learning curve for the technique. With an improved negative predictive value for significant cancer, decision for biopsy should be based on patient/surgeon factors and risk attributes alongside the MRI findings.


Assuntos
Biópsia Guiada por Imagem/métodos , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética/métodos , Próstata/diagnóstico por imagem , Próstata/patologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico por imagem , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Idoso , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Estudos Prospectivos , Ultrassonografia
2.
J Urol ; 190(4): 1380-6, 2013 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23608676

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Diagnosis and precise risk stratification of prostate cancer is essential for individualized treatment decisions. Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion has shown encouraging results for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. We critically evaluated magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy in routine clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Included in this prospective study were 347 consecutive patients with findings suspicious for prostate cancer. Median age was 65 years (range 42 to 84) and mean prostate specific antigen was 9.85 ng/ml (range 0.5 to 104). Of the men 49% previously underwent transrectal ultrasound guided biopsies, which were negative, and 51% underwent primary biopsy. In all patients 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was done. Systematic stereotactic prostate biopsies plus magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided biopsies were performed in those with abnormalities on magnetic resonance imaging. Imaging data and biopsy results were analyzed. A self-designed questionnaire was sent to all men on further clinical history and biopsy adverse effects. RESULTS: Of 347 patients biopsy samples of 200 (58%) showed prostate cancer and 73.5% of biopsy proven prostate cancer were clinically relevant according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria. On multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging 104 men had findings highly suspicious for prostate cancer. The tumor detection rate was 82.6% (86 of 104 men) with a Gleason score of 7 or greater in 72%. Overall targeted cores detected significantly more cancer than systematic biopsies (30% vs 8.2%). Of 94 patients without cancer suspicious lesions on magnetic resonance imaging 11 (11.7%) were diagnosed with intermediate risk disease. Regarding adverse effects, 152 of 300 patients (50.6%) reported mild hematuria, 26% had temporary erectile dysfunction and 2.6% needed short-term catheterization after biopsy. Nonseptic febrile urinary tract infections developed in 3 patients (1%). CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy provides high detection of clinically significant tumors. Since multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging still has some limitations, systematic biopsies should currently not be omitted. The morbidity of the transperineal saturation approach is reasonable and mainly self-limiting.


Assuntos
Biópsia Guiada por Imagem , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Biópsia por Agulha/métodos , Humanos , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Períneo , Estudos Prospectivos , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico por imagem , Reto , Ultrassonografia de Intervenção
3.
BJU Int ; 112(5): 568-77, 2013 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23773772

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To define terms and processes and agree on a minimum dataset in relation to transperineal prostate biopsy procedures and enhanced prostate diagnostics. To identify the need for further evaluation and establish a collaborative research practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 19-member multidisciplinary panel rated 66 items for their appropriateness and their definition to be incorporated into the international databank using the Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method. The item list was developed from interviews conducted with healthcare professionals from urology, radiology, pathology and engineering. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 56 items that were appropriate to be incorporated into a prospective database. In total, 10 items were uncertain and were omitted. These items were within the categories: definitions (n = 2), imaging (n = 1), surgical protocols (n = 2) and histology (n = 5). CONCLUSIONS: The components of a minimum dataset for transperineal prostate biopsy have been defined. This provides an opportunity for multicentre collaborative data analysis and technique development. The findings of the present study will facilitate prospective studies into the application and outcome of transperineal prostate biopsies.


Assuntos
Biópsia/métodos , Padrões de Prática Médica/normas , Próstata/patologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico , Adulto , Idoso , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Gradação de Tumores , Períneo , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Padrões de Referência , Medição de Risco , Inquéritos e Questionários , Terminologia como Assunto
4.
Asian J Androl ; 19(1): 62-66, 2017.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26924279

RESUMO

We aimed to determine short-term patient-reported outcomes in men having general anesthetic transperineal (TP) prostate biopsies. A prospective cohort study was performed in men having a diagnostic TP biopsy. This was done using a validated and adapted questionnaire immediately post-biopsy and at follow-up of between 7 and 14 days across three tertiary referral hospitals with a response rate of 51.6%. Immediately after biopsy 43/201 (21.4%) of men felt light-headed, syncopal, or suffered syncope. Fifty-three percent of men felt discomfort after biopsy (with 95% scoring <5 in a 0-10 scale). Twelve out of 196 men (6.1%) felt pain immediately after the procedure. Despite a high incidence of symptoms (e.g., up to 75% had some hematuria, 47% suffered some pain), it was not a moderate or serious problem for most, apart from hemoejaculate which 31 men suffered. Eleven men needed catheterization (5.5%). There were no inpatient admissions due to complications (hematuria, sepsis). On repeat questioning at a later time point, only 25/199 (12.6%) of men said repeat biopsy would be a significant problem despite a significant and marked reduction in erectile function after the procedure. From this study, we conclude that TP biopsy is well tolerated with similar side effect profiles and attitudes of men to repeat biopsy to men having TRUS biopsies. These data allow informed counseling of men prior to TP biopsy and a benchmark for tolerability with local anesthetic TP biopsies being developed for clinical use.


Assuntos
Anestesia Local , Atitude Frente a Saúde , Biópsia com Agulha de Grande Calibre/métodos , Períneo/cirurgia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Próstata/patologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Idoso , Estudos de Coortes , Tontura/epidemiologia , Hematúria/epidemiologia , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Dor Pós-Operatória/epidemiologia , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente , Estudos Prospectivos , Inquéritos e Questionários , Síncope/epidemiologia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA