RESUMO
In this retrospective study we compared the PCa detection rates between combined (combined MRI/US fusion targeted biopsy with concurrent standard biopsy) and standard systemic, combined and targeted (component), and targeted (component) and concurrent standard (component) biopsies. DESIGN: Two cohorts, totaling 735 cases, were selected from the University of Wisconsin Pathology archive. 390 cases (cohort 1) were combined biopsies from 2017-2020 and 345 cases (cohort 2) were part of the standard US-guided systematic biopsies from the same period. PCa was stratified into three categories: low, intermediate, and high risks. RESULTS: We found that combined biopsy was significantly better than the standard biopsy in detection of PCa (65.4% vs. 51.6%, P<0.01) and intermediate-risk PCa (18.7% vs. 10.4%, P=0.05) but only slightly better at detecting high-risk PCa (26.7% vs. 23.5%, P=0.32). Further examining the biopsy results in cohort 1, we found that combined biopsy was superior to targeted biopsy (65.4% vs. 56.9%, P=0.02) or concurrent standard biopsy (65.4% vs. 52.1%, P=0.0002) in PCa detection. Combined biopsy detected significantly more high-risk PCa than concurrent standard biopsy (26.7% vs. 17.4, P=0.002), but the difference in detecting high-risk PCa between combined and targeted biopsies was not significant (26.7% vs. 22.1%, P=0.133). Similarly, the differences in detecting PCa and high-risk PCa between targeted and concurrent standard biopsies were not significant (56.9% vs. 52.1%, P=0.172 and 22.1% vs. 17.4, P=0.133, respectively). Both targeted and concurrent standard biopsies missed PCa of each risk level. CONCLUSION: Combined MRI/US fusion targeted plus standard prostate biopsy is a superior technique for the detection of PCa and clinically significant PCa.
RESUMO
Strategies for managing the nervous system are numerous while methods of evaluating the nervous system are limited. Given the physiological importance of neurotransmitters as signaling molecules in the nervous system, the measurement of neurotransmitters has significant potential as a clinical tool. Of all the biological fluids that can be utilized, urinary neurotransmitter testing, due to its stability, sensitivity, and non-invasiveness, is the desired method to analyze nervous system function. Increasing use of this technology in a clinical setting demands a review of its feasibility, utility, and clinical value. We review the current body of literature pertaining to the mechanism of neurotransmitter transport across the blood-brain barrier as well as neurotransmitter filtration and excretion by the kidneys. In addition, this review summarizes the historical use of urinary neurotransmitter assessment to diagnose pheochromocytoma. Early research also correlated urinary assessment of neurotransmitters to various clinical symptoms and treatments of which we present research only for depression, ADHD, and inflammation because of the abundant amount of research in these areas. Finally, we review the limitations and challenges of urinary neurotransmitter testing. Taken together, evidence suggests that neurotransmitters excreted in the urine may have a place in clinical practice as a biomarker of nervous system function to effectively assess disturbances and monitor treatment efficacy.