Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
1.
World J Urol ; 37(10): 2147-2153, 2019 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30671638

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To define the role of focal laser ablation (FLA) as clinical treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) using the Delphi consensus method. METHODS: A panel of international experts in the field of focal therapy (FT) in PCa conducted a collaborative consensus project using the Delphi method. Experts were invited to online questionnaires focusing on patient selection and treatment of PCa with FLA during four subsequent rounds. After each round, outcomes were displayed, and questionnaires were modified based on the comments provided by panelists. Results were finalized and discussed during face-to-face meetings. RESULTS: Thirty-seven experts agreed to participate, and consensus was achieved on 39/43 topics. Clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was defined as any volume Grade Group 2 [Gleason score (GS) 3+4]. Focal therapy was specified as treatment of all csPCa and can be considered primary treatment as an alternative to radical treatment in carefully selected patients. In patients with intermediate-risk PCa (GS 3+4) as well as patients with MRI-visible and biopsy-confirmed local recurrence, FLA is optimal for targeted ablation of a specific magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-visible focus. However, FLA should not be applied to candidates for active surveillance and close follow-up is required. Suitability for FLA is based on tumor volume, location to vital structures, GS, MRI-visibility, and biopsy confirmation. CONCLUSION: Focal laser ablation is a promising technique for treatment of clinically localized PCa and should ideally be performed within approved clinical trials. So far, only few studies have reported on FLA and further validation with longer follow-up is mandatory before widespread clinical implementation is justified.


Asunto(s)
Terapia por Láser , Prostatectomía/métodos , Neoplasias de la Próstata/cirugía , Técnica Delphi , Humanos , Terapia por Láser/normas , Masculino , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Prostatectomía/normas
2.
World J Urol ; 35(5): 695-701, 2017 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27637908

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To codify the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for the interrogation of prostate neoplasia (PCa) in clinical practice and focal therapy (FT). METHODS: An international collaborative consensus project was undertaken using the Delphi method among experts in the field of PCa. An online questionnaire was presented in three consecutive rounds and modified each round based on the comments provided by the experts. Subsequently, a face-to-face meeting was held to discuss and finalize the consensus results. RESULTS: mpMRI should be performed in patients with prior negative biopsies if clinical suspicion remains, but not instead of the PSA test, nor as a stand-alone diagnostic tool or mpMRI-targeted biopsies only. It is not recommended to use a 1.5 Tesla MRI scanner without an endorectal or pelvic phased-array coil. mpMRI should be performed following standard biopsy-based PCa diagnosis in both the planning and follow-up of FT. If a lesion is seen, MRI-TRUS fusion biopsies should be performed for FT planning. Systematic biopsies are still required for FT planning in biopsy-naïve patients and for patients with residual PCa after FT. Standard repeat biopsies should be taken during the follow-up of FT. The final decision to perform FT should be based on histopathology. However, these consensus statements may differ for expert centers versus non-expert centers. CONCLUSIONS: The mpMRI is an important tool for characterizing and targeting PCa in clinical practice and FT. Standardization of acquisition and reading should be the main priority to guarantee consistent mpMRI quality throughout the urological community.


Asunto(s)
Imagen por Resonancia Magnética , Neoplasias de la Próstata/diagnóstico por imagen , Técnicas de Ablación , Biopsia , Criocirugía , Técnica Delphi , Electroquimioterapia , Ultrasonido Enfocado de Alta Intensidad de Ablación , Humanos , Terapia por Láser , Masculino , Patólogos , Fotoquimioterapia , Neoplasias de la Próstata/patología , Neoplasias de la Próstata/terapia , Radiólogos , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Urólogos
3.
World J Urol ; 34(10): 1373-82, 2016 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26892160

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To reach standardized terminology in focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: A four-stage modified Delphi consensus project was undertaken among a panel of international experts in the field of FT for PCa. Data on terminology in FT was collected from the panel by three rounds of online questionnaires. During a face-to-face meeting on June 21, 2015, attended by 38 experts, all data from the online rounds were reviewed and recommendations for definitions were formulated. RESULTS: Consensus was attained on 23 of 27 topics; Targeted FT was defined as a lesion-based treatment strategy, treating all identified significant cancer foci; FT was generically defined as an anatomy-based (zonal) treatment strategy. Treatment failure due to the ablative energy inadequately destroying treated tissue is defined as ablation failure. In targeting failure the energy is not adequately applied to the tumor spatially and selection failure occurs when a patient was wrongfully selected for FT. No definition of biochemical recurrence can be recommended based on the current data. Important definitions for outcome measures are potency (minimum IIEF-5 score of 21), incontinence (new need for pads or leakage) and deterioration in urinary function (increase in IPSS >5 points). No agreement on the best quality of life tool was established, but UCLA-EPIC and EORTC-QLQ-30 were most commonly supported by the experts. A complete overview of statements is presented in the text. CONCLUSION: Focal therapy is an emerging field of PCa therapeutics. Standardization of definitions helps to create comparable research results and facilitate clear communication in clinical practice.


Asunto(s)
Consenso , Técnica Delphi , Neoplasias de la Próstata/terapia , Calidad de Vida , Terapia Combinada/normas , Humanos , Masculino , Antígeno Prostático Específico/sangre , Neoplasias de la Próstata/sangre , Encuestas y Cuestionarios
4.
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis ; 25(2): 174-179, 2022 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34548624

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric MRI localizes cancer in the prostate, allowing for MRI guided biopsy (MRI-GB) 43 alongside transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy (TRUS-GB). Three MRI-GB approaches exist; visual estimation (COG-TB); fusion software-assisted (FUS-TB) and MRI 'in-bore' biopsy (IB-TB). It is unknown whether any of these are superior. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to address three questions. First, whether MRI-GB is superior to TRUS-GB at detecting clinically significant PCa (csPCa). Second, whether MRI-GB is superior to TRUS-GB at avoiding detection of insignificant PCa. Third, whether any MRI-GB strategy is superior at detecting csPCa. METHODS: A systematic literature review from 2015 to 2019 was performed in accordance with the START recommendations. Studies reporting PCa detection rates, employing MRI-GB and TRUS-GB were included and evaluated using the QUADAS-2 checklist. 1553 studies were found, of which 43 were included in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: For csPCa, MRI-GB was superior in detection to TRUS-GB (0.83 vs. 0.63 [p = 0.02]). MRI-GB was superior in detection to TRUS-GB at avoiding detection of insignificant PCa. No MRI-GB technique was superior at detecting csPCa (IB-TB 0.87; COG TB 0.81; FUS-TB 0.81, [p = 0.55]). There was significant heterogeneity observed between the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with suspected PCa on MRI, MRI-GB offers superior rates of csPCa detection and reduces detection of insignificant PCa compared to TRUS-GB. No individual MRI-GB technique was found to be better in csPCa detection. Prospective adequately powered randomized controlled trials are required.


Asunto(s)
Próstata , Neoplasias de la Próstata , Humanos , Biopsia Guiada por Imagen/métodos , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética/métodos , Masculino , Estudios Prospectivos , Próstata/diagnóstico por imagen , Próstata/patología , Neoplasias de la Próstata/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias de la Próstata/patología , Ultrasonografía Intervencional
5.
Arch Esp Urol ; 69(6): 302-10, 2016 Jul.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27416633

RESUMEN

Despite advances in the diagnosis of prostate cancer over the past century, it remains a leading cause of cancer related death. A recent recommendation against screening has further complicated the diagnosis and management of this condition. It remains to be demonstrated if newer diagnostic modalities will have an impact on mortality rates. Most certainly, not all prostate cancers need to be diagnosed, and methods of accurately diagnosing those cancers that lead to death needs more work. In this review article, we describe the different techniques, approaches and diagnostic accuracies of the currently used biopsy methods.


Asunto(s)
Próstata/patología , Neoplasias de la Próstata/patología , Biopsia/métodos , Humanos , Biopsia Guiada por Imagen , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética , Masculino
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA