ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the criteria that can predict bladder cancer among the lesions that could not be differentiated from intravesical prostate protrusion (IPP) and to create a scoring system using these criteria. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was made of patients with an ultrasound report indicating lesions in the bladder neck, for which differentiation between bladder cancer and IPP could not be determined. A total of 174 patients diagnosed with bladder cancer (n=102) or benign prostate lesion (n=72) according to the biopsy results were enrolled in the study. Hemoglobin, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume (PV), bladder wall thickness (BWT), lesion height (LH), and the ratio of lesion width to base (LW/B) were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: ROC analysis revealed an AUC value >0.7 for all factors, and the best cut-off value was identified for each factor. In the multivariate analysis, by determining a score for each factor according to the ORs, the BCa-IPP scoring system was developed to provide a total score in the range of minimum 0 and maximum 15. In the ROC analysis, the AUC value was 0.954 (95% CI: 0.923-0.986) for the BCa-IPP score. The best cut-off value was found to be 10, with sensitivity of 0.93 and specificity of 0.85. CONCLUSION: Using simple laboratory and ultrasound findings, the BCa-IPP scoring system was created, which was seen to have high predictive value and can be easily applied in the clinic. The BCa-IPP scoring system is a non-invasive test that can be successfully applied for the differentiation of bladder cancer from benign lesions.
ABSTRACT
The prevalence of penile calcification in the population remains uncertain. This retrospective multicenter study aimed to determine the prevalence and characteristics of penile calcification in a large cohort of male patients undergoing non-contrast pelvic tomography. A total of 14 545 scans obtained from 19 participating centers between 2016 and 2022 were retrospectively analyzed within a 3-months period. Eligible scans (n = 12 709) were included in the analysis. Patient age, penile imaging status, presence of calcified plaque, and plaque measurements were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed to assess the relationships between calcified plaque, patient age, plaque characteristics, and plaque location. Among the analyzed scans, 767 (6.04%) patients were found to have at least one calcified plaque. Patients with calcified plaque had a significantly higher median age (64 years (IQR 56-72)) compared to those with normal penile evaluation (49 years (IQR 36-60) (p < 0.001). Of the patients with calcified plaque, 46.4% had only one plaque, while 53.6% had multiple plaques. There was a positive correlation between age and the number of plaques (r = 0.31, p < 0.001). The average dimensions of the calcified plaques were as follows: width: 3.9 ± 5 mm, length: 5.3 ± 5.2 mm, height: 3.5 ± 3.2 mm, with an average plaque area of 29 ± 165 mm² and mean plaque volume of 269 ± 3187 mm³. Plaques were predominantly located in the proximal and mid-penile regions (44.1% and 40.5%, respectively), with 77.7% located on the dorsal side of the penis. The hardness level of plaques, assessed by Hounsfield units, median of 362 (IQR 250-487) (range: 100-1400). Patients with multiple plaques had significantly higher Hounsfield unit values compared to those with a single plaque (p = 0.003). Our study revealed that patients with calcified plaques are older and have multiple plaques predominantly located on the dorsal and proximal side of the penis.
