Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
World J Urol ; 42(1): 43, 2024 Jan 20.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38244150

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION AND METHODS: Prostate biopsy (PB) is an essential step in the diagnosis and active surveillance of prostate cancer (PCa). Transperineal PB (TP-PB) is now the recommended approach and is mostly conducted under local anesthesia. However, this procedure can potentially cause anxiety for patients, given the oncological context and the fear of peri-procedural pain and complications. The objective of this narrative review is to summarize the currently available tools for the management of peri-interventional anxiety during TP-PB, with a particular emphasis on the potential role of virtual reality (VR) in this setting. RESULTS: In TP-PB, preoperative anxiety can lead to increased pain perception, longer procedure time, and decreased patient satisfaction. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches have been explored to reduce anxiety, such as premedication, deep sedation, education, relaxation techniques, hypnosis, and music therapy, albeit with mixed results. VR has recently emerged in the technological armamentarium for managing pain and anxiety, and the efficiency of this technology has been evaluated in various medical fields, including pediatrics, gastroenterology, urology, gynecology, and psychiatry. CONCLUSION: Despite the paucity of available data, VR appears to be a safe and effective technique in reducing anxiety in many procedures, even in frail patients. No studies have evaluated the role of VR in TP-PB. Future research should thus explore the optimal way to implement VR technology and any potential benefits for TP-PB patients.


Asunto(s)
Ansiedad , Biopsia , Próstata , Humanos , Masculino , Anestesia Local , Ansiedad/etiología , Ansiedad/prevención & control , Biopsia/efectos adversos , Biopsia/psicología , Dolor , Próstata/patología
2.
Prostate ; 83(6): 572-579, 2023 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36705314

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI-targeted biopsy are nowadays recommended in the prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostic pathway. Ploussard and Mazzone have integrated these tools into novel risk classification systems predicting the risk of early biochemical recurrence (eBCR) in PCa patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP). We aimed to assess available risk classification systems and to define the best-performing. METHODS: Data on 1371 patients diagnosed by MRI-targeted biopsy and treated by RP between 2014 and 2022 at eight European tertiary referral centers were analyzed. Risk classifications systems included were the European Association of Urology (EAU) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk groups, the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score, the International Staging Collaboration for Cancer of the Prostate (STAR-CAP) classification, the Ploussard and Mazzone models, and ISUP grade group. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to compare eBCR among risk classification systems. Performance was assessed in terms of discrimination quantified using Harrell's c-index, calibration, and decision curve analysis (DCA). RESULTS: Overall, 152 (11%) patients had eBCR at a median follow-up of 31 months (interquartile range: 19-45). The 3-year eBCR-free survival rate was 91% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 89-93). For each risk classification system, a significant difference among survival probabilities was observed (log-rank test p < 0.05) except for NCCN classification (p = 0.06). The highest discrimination was obtained with the STAR-CAP classification (c-index 66%) compared to CAPRA score (63% vs. 66%, p = 0.2), ISUP grade group (62% vs. 66, p = 0.07), Ploussard (61% vs. 66%, p = 0.003) and Mazzone models (59% vs. 66%, p = 0.02), and EAU (57% vs. 66%, p < 0.001) and NCCN (57% vs. 66%, p < 0.001) risk groups. Risk classification systems demonstrated good calibration characteristics. At DCA, the CAPRA score showed the highest net benefit at a probability threshold of 9%-15%. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of risk classification systems using MRI and MRI-targeted information was less optimistic when tested in a contemporary set of patients. CAPRA score and STAR-CAP classification were the best-performing and should be preferred for treatment decision-making.


Asunto(s)
Biopsia , Antígeno Prostático Específico , Neoplasias de la Próstata , Humanos , Masculino , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética , Espectroscopía de Resonancia Magnética , Prostatectomía/métodos , Neoplasias de la Próstata/diagnóstico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/cirugía , Estudios Retrospectivos , Medición de Riesgo/métodos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA