Utility of digital rectal examination, serum prostate specific antigen, and transrectal ultrasound in the detection of prostate cancer: a developing country perspective.

PURPOSE: To determine the utility of digital rectal examination (DRE), serum total prostate specific antigen (tPSA) estimation, and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with abnormal DRE, TRUS, or serum tPSA >4ng/ml, in any combination, underwent TRUS-guided needle biopsy. Eight cores of prostatic tissue were obtained from different areas of the peripheral prostate and examined histopathologically for the nature of the pathology. RESULTS: PCa was detected in 151 (50.3%) patients, remaining 149 (49.7%) showed benign changes with or without active prostatitis. PCa was detected in 13 (56.5%), 9 (19.1%), 26 (28.3%), and 103 (74.6%) of patients with tPSA <4 ng/ml, 4-10 ng/ml, 10-20 ng/ml and >20 ng/ml respectively. Only 13 patients with PCa had abnormal DRE and TRUS with serum PSA <4 ng/ml. The detection rate was highest in patients with tPSA >20 ng/ml. The association between tPSA level and cancer detection was statistically significant (p<0.01). Among 209 patients with abnormal DRE and raised serum PSA, PCa was detected in 128 (61.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of PCa increases with increasing serum level of tPSA. The overall screening and detection rate can be further improved by using DRE, TRUS and TRUS-guided prostate needle biopsies.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) vs. ureterorenoscopic (URS) manipulation in proximal ureteric stone.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the stone free rate at one week after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureterorenoscopic (URS) manipulation for proximal ureteric stone (10 - 15 mm size). STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation (SIUT), Karachi, from August 2010 to February 2011. METHODOLOGY: One hundred and ninety patients with 10 - 15 mm proximal urteric stone, in each group were treated with ESWL and ureterorenoscopic manipulation by using an 8.0 or 8.5 Fr semi rigid ureteroscope. Intracorporeal lithotripsy was performed by using pneumatic lithoclast. The stone free rate were compared between groups by considering size of stone at one week after procedure. The success rate, retreatment rate, auxiliary procedure and complication rate were compared in each group. RESULTS: Success rate was 49.2% for ESWL and 57.8% for URS (p = 0.008). The re-treatment rate was significantly higher in ESWL group than in URS group (40% vs. 11 and 18% in URS group). CONCLUSION: Although ESWL is regarded as the preferred choice of treatment for proximal ureteric stone, the present results suggest that ureterorenoscopic manipulation with intracorporeal lithotripsy is a safe alternative, with an advantage of obtaining an earlier or immediate stone-free status. Laparoscopic approaches are reasonable alternatives in cases, where ESWL and URS have failed.