Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
The utility and limitations of contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasound scanning for the detection of prostate cancer in different area of prostate.
Xie, Shao Wei; Dong, Bai Jun; Xia, Jian Guo; Li, Hong Li; Zhang, Shi Jun; Du, Jing; Yang, Wen Qi; Li, Feng Hua; Xue, Wei.
  • Xie SW; Department of Ultrasound, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
  • Dong BJ; Department of Urology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
  • Xia JG; Department of Ultrasound, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
  • Li HL; Department of Ultrasound, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
  • Zhang SJ; Department of Ultrasound, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
  • Du J; Department of Ultrasound, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
  • Yang WQ; Department of Ultrasound, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
  • Li FH; Department of Ultrasound, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
  • Xue W; Department of Urology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Clin Hemorheol Microcirc ; 70(3): 281-290, 2018.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29710684
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasound (CETRUS) scanning for prostate cancer detection in different area, compared with conventional transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). METHODS: 228 patients underwent TRUS-guided prostate biopsy after examinations of TRUS and CETRUS scanning. Cancer detection between CETRUS and TRUS were compared by patient and by site in different areas (right, left; base, mid-gland, apex). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CETRUS. RESULTS: 89 patients were malignant and 48 patients were significant cancer. Compared with TRUS, CETRUS could increase the detection rates of overall and significant cancer (P = 0.008; P = 0.031). CETRUS had higher sensitivity, specificity (except right lobe), accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) in total, right and left lobe (P < 0.05). The sensitivity were greater for CETRUS in all areas except left base and right apex (P < 0.05). The accuracy were greater for CETRUS in all areas except left mid-gland and right apex (P < 0.05). ROC analysis showed CETRUS totally got the AUC of 0.816. The AUC was higher in left lobe than right lobe (0.837 vs. 0.793). It was most accurate at the base (0.833), then mid-gland (0.826), and lowest in apex (0.772). CONCLUSIONS: CETRUS had a significant advantage over conventional TRUS for prostate cancer detection in different areas. CETRUS much more easily missed the cancer in apex, we must focus more on apex and may add other imaging modalities to improve the visualization and detection of prostate cancer.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neoplasias de la Próstata / Ultrasonido Enfocado Transrectal de Alta Intensidad Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies Límite: Aged / Aged80 / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Año: 2018 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neoplasias de la Próstata / Ultrasonido Enfocado Transrectal de Alta Intensidad Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies Límite: Aged / Aged80 / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Año: 2018 Tipo del documento: Article