Literature DB >> 12973073

Should ultrasound criteria of the prostate be redefined to better evaluate when and where to biopsy.

T Vo1, M D Rifkin, T L Peters.   

Abstract

During the past 10 years, it has been suggested, and accepted by some, that transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) of the prostate should be used to identify a hypoechoic lesion or, if needed, guide biopsy into nonspecific areas. Retrospectively, the authors attempted to evaluate the need to identify areas that were on pathologic analysis, prostate cancer, but were not hypoechoic, but would require random/systematic biopsy to exclude prostate cancer. Six-hundred fifteen consecutive men were referred to the authors because of a concern found on digital rectal examination or because of increase in prostate-specific antigen. All patients underwent TRUS-guided biopsy of the prostate using either the four-quadrant or sextant biopsy technique. Each area undergoing biopsy was characterized as: 1) normal-appearing; 2) hypoechoic; 3) mixed echogenic (containing both hypoechoic and hyperechoic elements); 4) subtly hyperechoic (containing no calculi); or 5) isoechoic (lesion was seen because of distortion of the normal architecture). A diagnosis of carcinoma was made in 197 patients (32%). Of these, 99 (50.2%) patients had a hypoechoic lesion as the primary site, corresponding to their highest Gleason grade. Twenty-five (12.7%) had mixed echogenicity, nine (4.6%) had hyperechoic foci, and 23 (11.7%) had isoechoic biopsy-proven foci of prostate cancer. Forty-one (20.8%) patients with adenocarcinoma had normal ultrasound findings. The median Gleason grade for cancer in visible mixed echogenic and hyperechoic areas were generally higher than that for cancer in hypoechoic sites. Hypoechoic cancer sites had a Gleason grade range of 2 to 10 (median 5); mixed echogenic foci had a Gleason range of 2 to 10 (median 6); hyperechogenic cancers had a Gleason range of 2 to 8 (median 6); isoechoic cancers had a Gleason range of 2 to 7 (median 5); normal foci had a Gleason range of 2 to 8 (median 5). Results of this study suggest that 50% of clinically significant prostate cancers are not purely hypoechoic, and 37% of all diagnosed cancers contain no hypoechoic elements.

Entities:  

Year:  2001        PMID: 12973073     DOI: 10.1097/00013644-200109000-00005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Q        ISSN: 0894-8771            Impact factor:   1.657


  9 in total

Review 1.  The technique of ultrasound guided prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Imre Romics
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2004-09-29       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Clinical utility of endorectal MRI-guided prostate biopsy: preliminary experience.

Authors:  Adam J Jung; Antonio C Westphalen; John Kurhanewicz; Zhen J Wang; Peter R Carroll; Jeffry P Simko; Fergus V Coakley
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-10-31       Impact factor: 4.813

3.  Internalization of secreted antigen-targeted antibodies by the neonatal Fc receptor for precision imaging of the androgen receptor axis.

Authors:  Daniel L J Thorek; Philip A Watson; Sang-Gyu Lee; Anson T Ku; Stylianos Bournazos; Katharina Braun; Kwanghee Kim; Kjell Sjöström; Michael G Doran; Urpo Lamminmäki; Elmer Santos; Darren Veach; Mesruh Turkekul; Emily Casey; Jason S Lewis; Diane S Abou; Marise R H van Voss; Peter T Scardino; Sven-Erik Strand; Mary L Alpaugh; Howard I Scher; Hans Lilja; Steven M Larson; David Ulmert
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2016-11-30       Impact factor: 17.956

4.  Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy for detecting prostate cancer: can random biopsies be reduced using the 4-dimensional technique?

Authors:  Fawzi T Abul; Narayanaswamy Arun; Mona A Abu-Assi; Akram M Asbeutah
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2007-02-17       Impact factor: 2.370

5.  Transrectal electrical impedance tomography of the prostate: spatially coregistered pathological findings for prostate cancer detection.

Authors:  Yuqing Wan; Andrea Borsic; John Heaney; John Seigne; Alan Schned; Michael Baker; Shaun Wason; Alex Hartov; Ryan Halter
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  A prospective pilot study of (89)Zr-J591/prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in men with localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Joseph R Osborne; David A Green; Daniel E Spratt; Serge Lyashchenko; Shoaib B Fareedy; Brian D Robinson; Bradley J Beattie; Manu Jain; Jason S Lewis; Paul Christos; Steven M Larson; Neil H Bander; Douglas S Scherr
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-10-14       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 7.  The role of metabolic imaging in radiation therapy of prostate cancer.

Authors:  V Y Zhang; A Westphalen; L Delos Santos; Z L Tabatabai; K Shinohara; D B Vigneron; J Kurhanewicz
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2013-08-12       Impact factor: 4.044

8.  Do additional cores from cancer-suspicious lesions on transrectal ultrasound improve prostate cancer detection including index tumors over 12-core systematic biopsy?

Authors:  Jung Ki Jo; Sung Kyu Hong; Seok-Soo Byun; Sang Eun Lee; Seong Jin Jeong
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2018-05-10       Impact factor: 3.989

9.  "In-Bore" MRI-Guided Prostate Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Results from 140 Consecutive Patients.

Authors:  Daniele D'Agostino; Daniele Romagnoli; Marco Giampaoli; Federico Mineo Bianchi; Paolo Corsi; Alessandro Del Rosso; Riccardo Schiavina; Eugenio Brunocilla; Walter Artibani; Angelo Porreca
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2020-03-20
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.