Literature DB >> 19362864

The importance of tumor palpability and transrectal ultrasonographic appearance in the contemporary clinical staging of prostate cancer.

Michael L Eisenberg1, Janet E Cowan, Benjamin J Davies, Peter R Carroll, Katsuto Shinohara.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: An accurate assessment of the clinical stage of prostate cancer is important to determine the most appropriate treatments for patients. Most centers rely on digital rectal examination, given conflicting results in the literature regarding the role of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS).
OBJECTIVE: Since ultrasound technologies as well as physician experience have improved, the contemporary impact of TRUS on the clinical staging of prostate cancer was assessed. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In 2002, a standardized form to evaluate TRUS findings in order to rank the clinical suspicion of extracapsular extension (ECE) was used for all prostate cancer patients evaluated at UCSF. Preoperative clinical findings were compared with pathological staging as assessed by analysis of radical prostatectomy specimens from 2002 to 2007 (n = 620).
RESULTS: Mean patient age was 58 ± 6.6 years with a mean PSA of 7.0 ± 4.5; 157/620 (25.3%) had pathologic ECE. Evidence of ECE by TRUS was associated with higher pathologic stage (P < 0.00001) and higher rates of biochemical failure after prostatectomy (P = 0.0006). Overall, TRUS had a 31% sensitivity, 92% specificity, 58% positive predictive value, and 80% negative predictive value with an area under the curve of 0.77 for the detection of ECE. TRUS alone was significantly more accurate in predicting ECE than commonly used nomograms or tables (P < 0.001) when examining patients with impalpable tumors.
CONCLUSIONS: In the current era, TRUS provides an accurate method to assess a cancer stage.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19362864     DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.01.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Oncol        ISSN: 1078-1439            Impact factor:   3.498


  6 in total

1.  Radiation therapy in prostate cancer: a risk-adapted strategy.

Authors:  A J Hayden; C Catton; T Pickles
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.677

Review 2.  Biomarker research in prostate cancer--towards utility, not futility.

Authors:  Sheng Fei Oon; Stephen R Pennington; John M Fitzpatrick; R William G Watson
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Design of a predictive targeting error simulator for MRI-guided prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Shachar Avni; Siddharth Vikal; Gabor Fichtinger
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2010-02-23

4.  Modalities for imaging of prostate cancer.

Authors:  A H Hou; D Swanson; A B Barqawi
Journal:  Adv Urol       Date:  2010-03-17

5.  ERG rearrangement as a novel marker for predicting the extra-prostatic extension of clinically localised prostate cancer.

Authors:  L I Lu; Hao Zhang; Jun Pang; Guo-Liang Hou; Min-Hua Lu; Xin Gao
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 2.967

6.  Image-based monitoring of targeted biopsy-proven prostate cancer on active surveillance: 11-year experience.

Authors:  Sunao Shoji; Osamu Ukimura; Andre Luis de Castro Abreu; Arnaud Marien; Toru Matsugasumi; Duke Bahn; Inderbir S Gill
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-06-21       Impact factor: 3.661

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.