Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 9 de 9
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Tipo de estudo
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Clin Nucl Med ; 44(7): e433-e434, 2019 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31058690

RESUMO

We report a case of a 43-year-old man who underwent a radical prostatectomy 3 years before the procedure (June 2015) for a locally advanced Gleason 7(4 + 3) prostate adenocarcinoma (pT3aN0), with negative surgical margins, followed by salvage radiotherapy. He also underwent antiandrogen therapy for biochemical relapse (bicalutamide) from October 2016 through May 2017, but prostate-specific antigen continued to rise (2.5 ng/mL [December 2017] and 3.3 ng/mL [February 2018]). At this point, he underwent a Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen PET/CT, and after multidisciplinary discussion, the therapeutic option chosen was image-guided salvage cryoablation.


Assuntos
Criocirurgia , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/diagnóstico por imagem , Tomografia Computadorizada com Tomografia por Emissão de Pósitrons , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/diagnóstico por imagem , Prostatectomia , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico por imagem , Adulto , Ácido Edético/análogos & derivados , Humanos , Masculino , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/patologia , Oligopeptídeos , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/cirurgia , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia , Compostos Radiofarmacêuticos
2.
Abdom Radiol (NY) ; 44(2): 732-738, 2019 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30255444

RESUMO

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the complication rates between transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) systematic prostate biopsy and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective study, institutional review board approved. Systematic TRUS and MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy complication rates were compared in 967 men. A total of 319 patients were received systematic TRUS prostate biopsy and 648 patients underwent systematic TRUS + MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy. Complications were divided into immediate (those that occurred during the hospital observation period) and late (those that occurred within 5 days after biopsy). RESULTS: Seventeen complications were observed in patients who received either a systematic prostate biopsy or MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy. Severe complications were not observed in both groups. Among patients who underwent systematic prostate biopsy, 6 (1.9%) cases of complications were observed and between those who received MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy 11 (1.7%) cases of complications after the procedure (p = 0.873) were observed, with no statistical difference between groups. Also, no statistical differences between early and late complication groups (p > 0.999) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The complication rates were low in both groups, with no critical clinical outcomes and no significant difference of complication rates between systematic TRUS prostate biopsy and MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy techniques.

3.
Int. braz. j. urol ; 44(6): 1106-1113, Nov.-Dec. 2018. tab, graf
Artigo em Inglês | LILACS-Express | ID: biblio-975665

RESUMO

ABSTRACT Purpose: Ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging (US-MRI) fusion biopsy (FB) improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). We aimed to compare the Gleason upgrading (GU) rates and the concordance of the Gleason scores in the biopsy versus final pathology after surgery in patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) systematic random biopsies (SRB) versus US-MRI FB for PCa. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of data that were collected prospectively from January 2011 to June 2016 from patients who underwent prostate biopsy and subsequent radical prostatectomy. The study cohort was divided into two groups: US-MRI FB (Group A) and TRUS SRB (Group B). US-MRI FB was performed in patients with a previous MRI with a focal lesion with a Likert score ≥3; otherwise, a TRUS SRB was performed. Results: In total, 73 men underwent US-MRI FB, and 89 underwent TRUS SRB. The GU rate was higher in Group B (31.5% vs. 16.4%; p=0.027). According to the Gleason grade pattern, GU was higher in Group B than in Group A (40.4% vs. 23.3%; p=0.020). Analyses of the Gleason grading patterns showed that Gleason scores 3+4 presented less GU in Group A (24.1% vs. 52.6%; p=0.043). The Bland-Altman plot analysis showed a higher bias in Group B than in Group A (-0.27 [-1.40 to 0.86] vs. −0.01 [-1.42 to 1.39]). In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, the only independent predictor of GU was the use of TRUS SRB (2.64 [1.11 - 6.28]; p=0.024). Conclusions: US-MRI FB appears to be related to a decrease in GU rate and an increase in concordance between biopsy and final pathology compared to TRUS SRB, suggesting that performing US-MRI FB leads to greater accuracy of diagnosis and better treatment decisions.

4.
Int Braz J Urol ; 44(6): 1106-1113, 2018.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30325600

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging (US-MRI) fusion biopsy (FB) improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). We aimed to compare the Gleason upgrading (GU) rates and the concordance of the Gleason scores in the biopsy versus final pathology after surgery in patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) systematic random biopsies (SRB) versus US-MRI FB for PCa. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data that were collected prospectively from January 2011 to June 2016 from patients who underwent prostate biopsy and subsequent radical prostatectomy. The study cohort was divided into two groups: US-MRI FB (Group A) and TRUS SRB (Group B). US-MRI FB was performed in patients with a previous MRI with a focal lesion with a Likert score ≥3; otherwise, a TRUS SRB was performed. RESULTS: In total, 73 men underwent US-MRI FB, and 89 underwent TRUS SRB. The GU rate was higher in Group B (31.5% vs. 16.4%; p=0.027). According to the Gleason grade pattern, GU was higher in Group B than in Group A (40.4% vs. 23.3%; p=0.020). Analyses of the Gleason grading patterns showed that Gleason scores 3+4 presented less GU in Group A (24.1% vs. 52.6%; p=0.043). The Bland-Altman plot analysis showed a higher bias in Group B than in Group A (-0.27 [-1.40 to 0.86] vs. -0.01 [-1.42 to 1.39]). In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, the only independent predictor of GU was the use of TRUS SRB (2.64 [1.11 - 6.28]; p=0.024). CONCLUSIONS: US-MRI FB appears to be related to a decrease in GU rate and an increase in concordance between biopsy and final pathology compared to TRUS SRB, suggesting that performing US-MRI FB leads to greater accuracy of diagnosis and better treatment decisions.


Assuntos
Biópsia Guiada por Imagem/métodos , Imagem por Ressonância Magnética Intervencionista , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico por imagem , Ultrassonografia de Intervenção , Idoso , Estudos de Coortes , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Gradação de Tumores , Prostatectomia , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Estudos Retrospectivos
5.
Radiol Bras ; 51(2): 102-105, 2018.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29743737

RESUMO

Objective: To describe the technique of injecting hemostatic matrix, as well as the experience of our interventional radiology department in its application. Materials and Methods: We conducted a single-center study with retrospective analysis of the experience of our group in the use of hemostatic gelatin matrix in percutaneous biopsies. Results: In a total of 73 biopsies in different organs, such as the liver, kidney, and spleen, hemostatic gelatin matrix was introduced into the coaxial needle. The only complication observed was migration of the hemostatic matrix to the left kidney collecting system, and that was resolved with clinical treatment. There were no cases of bleeding after the injection of hemostatic matrix. Conclusion: The use of hemostatic matrices in the path of percutaneous biopsies is another tool available for consideration in minimally invasive procedures.

6.
Radiol. bras ; 51(2): 102-105, Mar.-Apr. 2018. graf
Artigo em Inglês | LILACS-Express | ID: biblio-956233

RESUMO

Abstract Objective: To describe the technique of injecting hemostatic matrix, as well as the experience of our interventional radiology department in its application. Materials and Methods: We conducted a single-center study with retrospective analysis of the experience of our group in the use of hemostatic gelatin matrix in percutaneous biopsies. Results: In a total of 73 biopsies in different organs, such as the liver, kidney, and spleen, hemostatic gelatin matrix was introduced into the coaxial needle. The only complication observed was migration of the hemostatic matrix to the left kidney collecting system, and that was resolved with clinical treatment. There were no cases of bleeding after the injection of hemostatic matrix. Conclusion: The use of hemostatic matrices in the path of percutaneous biopsies is another tool available for consideration in minimally invasive procedures.


Resumo Objetivo: Descrever a técnica de injeção de matrizes hemostáticas e a experiência do nosso serviço de radiologia intervencionista na sua aplicação. Materiais e Métodos: Foi realizado estudo unicêntrico com análise retrospectiva da experiência do nosso grupo na utilização de matriz hemostática gelatinosa em biópsias percutâneas. Resultados: Foram realizadas 73 biópsias com utilização de matriz hemostática gelatinosa no trajeto da agulha coaxial em diferentes órgãos, como fígado, rim, baço, entre outros. A única complicação observada foi a migração da matriz hemostática para o sistema coletor do rim esquerdo, sendo solucionada com tratamento clínico. Não foram observados casos de sangramento no trajeto das biópsias após a injeção de matrizes hemostáticas. Conclusão: O uso de matrizes hemostáticas no trajeto de biópsias percutâneas é mais uma ferramenta disponível a ser considerada nos procedimentos minimamente invasivos.

9.
Rev. imagem ; 29(2): 53-59, abr.-jun. 2007. ilus
Artigo em Português | LILACS | ID: lil-542026

RESUMO

O osteocondroma é a entidade mais comum entre os diversos tumores ósseos conhecidos. Sendo uma lesão com alta capacidade expansiva e em certos casos com crescimento contínuo, pode determinar complicações, principalmente devido à ocupação de espaços que promove. Pode se apresentar de forma solitária ou múltipla, estando esta última relacionada à maior tendência para transformação sarcomatosa, que é a complicação mais temida. O objetivo do presente estudo édemonstrar, por meio de um ensaio iconográfico, as complicações mais comuns causadas pelos osteocondromas, correlacionando seus aspectos clínicos e radiológicos.


Osteochondroma is the most common entity beyond all the known osseous tumors. It is a lesion with a high enlargement capacity and a continuous growing in some cases, and it may determine complications, mainly due to mass effect. It may be present in a solitary or multiple forms, and the last one is related with a higher tendency to sarcomatous transformation, which is the most frightening complication. The purpose of the present study is to demonstrate, through an iconographic assay, the most common complicationscaused by the osteochondromas, making the correlation of its clinical and radiological aspects.


Assuntos
Espectroscopia de Ressonância Magnética , Neoplasias Ósseas/complicações , Osteocondroma/complicações , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X , Osteocondroma/cirurgia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA