Literature DB >> 19286200

Does transrectal ultrasound probe configuration really matter? End fire versus side fire probe prostate cancer detection rates.

Christina B Ching1, Ayman S Moussa, Jianbo Li, Brian R Lane, Craig Zippe, J Stephen Jones.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We compared prostate cancer detection rates for the 2 most commonly used transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy probes, end fire and side fire, to determine whether the probe configuration affects detection rates.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 2,674 patients who underwent initial prostate biopsy between 2000 and 2008 with respect to prostate specific antigen, biopsy technique and pathological findings. Patients were divided into 1,124 in whom biopsies were performed with an end fire probe and 1,550 in whom biopsies were performed with a side fire probe.
RESULTS: There was a significant difference in the overall cancer detection rate in the end vs side fire arms (45.8% vs 38.5%, p <0.001). In the subsets of patients with prostate specific antigen greater than 4 to 10 ng/ml or less and greater than 10 ng/ml a significant difference persisted (46.4% vs 38.9% and 61.7% vs 49.1%, p <0.004 and <0.015, respectively). There was also a significant difference in detection rates between probes in those who underwent 8 to 19 biopsy cores (p <0.009). Biopsies of greater than 20 cores failed to attain statistical significance (p >0.105). We also found that prostate volume, patient age, prostate specific antigen and hypoechoic findings were independent variables for predicting cancer detection on multivariate analysis (p <0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The type of probe significantly affects the overall prostate cancer detection rate, particularly in patients with prostate specific antigen greater than 4 ng/ml and/or nonsaturation (8 to 19 cores) prostate biopsy. This may be because the end fire probe allows better mechanical sampling of the lateral and apical regions of the peripheral zone, where cancer is most likely to reside. We set the stage for a randomized, controlled trial to confirm our observations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19286200     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.01.035

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  12 in total

1.  Prostate cancer: The optimal number and location of cores for repeat biopsy.

Authors:  J Stephen Jones
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2011-10-25       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  Impact of the type of ultrasound probe on prostate cancer detection rate and characterization in patients undergoing MRI-targeted prostate biopsies using cognitive fusion.

Authors:  Guillaume Ploussard; Samuel Aronson; Vincent Pelsser; Mark Levental; Maurice Anidjar; Franck Bladou
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-10-16       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 3.  Ultrasonography in prostate cancer: current roles and potential applications in radiorecurrent disease.

Authors:  James S Rosoff; Sandip M Prasad; Stephen J Savage
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 4.  Management of rising prostate-specific antigen after a negative biopsy.

Authors:  David A Levy; J Stephen Jones
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 5.  Prostate biopsy for the interventional radiologist.

Authors:  Cheng William Hong; Hayet Amalou; Sheng Xu; Baris Turkbey; Pingkun Yan; Jochen Kruecker; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 3.464

6.  Diagnostic prostate biopsy performed in a non-academic center increases the risk of re-classification at confirmatory biopsy for men considering active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Authors:  L M Wong; S Ferrara; S M H Alibhai; A Evans; T Van der Kwast; G Trottier; N Timilshina; A Toi; G Kulkarni; R Hamilton; A Zlotta; N Fleshner; A Finelli
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 5.554

7.  Optimal prostate biopsy regimen.

Authors:  Ryan K Berglund; J Stephen Jones
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 8.  Optimization of prostate biopsy: review of technique and complications.

Authors:  Marc A Bjurlin; James S Wysock; Samir S Taneja
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 2.241

Review 9.  Single foci prostate cancer: current diagnosis and management.

Authors:  Ioannis Efthimiou; Konstadinos Skrepetis; Elefteria Bournia
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2013-07-28

Review 10.  Progression on active surveillance for prostate cancer in Black men: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hari T Vigneswaran; Luke Mittelstaedt; Alessio Crippa; Martin Eklund; Adriana Vidal; Stephen J Freedland; Michael R Abern
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2021-07-08       Impact factor: 5.554

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.