Literature DB >> 21871054

Does the transrectal ultrasound probe influence prostate cancer detection in patients undergoing an extended prostate biopsy scheme? Results of a large retrospective study.

Marco Raber1, Vincenzo Scattoni, Andrea Gallina, Massimo Freschi, Eduardo Pedroso De Almeyda, Valerio Di Girolamo, Francesco Montorsi, Patrizio Rigatti.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: • To compare the prostate cancer detection rate and tolerance profile between a transrectal biopsy made with a 'side fire' (SF) and an 'end fire' (EF) ultrasound probe. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • We selected patients undergoing first biopsy and re-biopsy of the prostate with a 14- and 18-core template using EF and SF transrectal probes, respectively. • We compared the cancer detection rate between the two probes on first biopsy and re-biopsy and gauged patient tolerance using a visual analogue scale (VAS).
RESULTS: • A total of 1705 patients were included in the first biopsy group, while 487 were in the re-biopsy group. • The overall detection rate of first biopsy was 37.2%; the overall detection rate of re-biopsy was 10.1%. • No significant difference was found between the two probes in the first biopsy and re-biopsy sets (38% vs 36.5%, P= 0.55; 10.8% vs 9.3%, P= 0.7). • The lack of any significant association between the type of probe used and prostate cancer detection was confirmed by univariable and multivariable analyses in both the first biopsy and re-biopsy sets after accounting for prostate-specific antigen values, per cent free prostate-specific antigen, digital rectal examination, and prostate and transition zone volumes. • The patient tolerance profile of the SF group was significantly better than that of the EF group (mean VAS 1.78 ± 2.01 vs 1.45 ± 2.21; P= 0.02).
CONCLUSION: • The prostate cancer detection rate does not depend on the type of probe used. However, the SF transrectal probe is associated with a better patient tolerance profile.
© 2011 THE AUTHORS. BJU INTERNATIONAL © 2011 BJU INTERNATIONAL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21871054     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10522.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  3 in total

1.  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 2.  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 3.  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

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.