Literature DB >> 25443925

Histoscanning has low sensitivity and specificity for seminal vesicle invasion.

Jonas Schiffmann1, Burkhard Beyer2, Johannes Fischer2, Pierre Tennstedt2, Katharina Boehm2, Uwe Michl2, Markus Graefen2, Georg Salomon2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the accuracy of HistoScanning (HS) in detecting seminal vesicle (SV) invasion (SVI) within prostate cancer (PCa) patients.
METHODS: We relied on our prospective institutional database. Patients who received HS before radical prostatectomy were included in the study cohort. An experienced HS examiner retrospectively reanalyzed the HS data blinded to patient characteristics and pathologic results. The HS results for every single SV were compared with the corresponding findings from the final pathologic report after radical prostatectomy. An area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the prediction of SVI by HS was calculated. Depending on HS signal volume cut-offs (>0, >0.2, and >0.5 mL), the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for the prediction of SVI were assessed.
RESULTS: Overall, 131 patients and 262 SVs were assessable. Of those, 23 (17.5%) men had SVI, and 39 (14.9%) single SVs were infiltrated by tumor overall. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for predicting SVI by HS was 0.54. Depending on the HS signal volume cut-offs (>0, >0.2, and >0.5 mL), the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for predicting SVI were 76.9%, 10.8%, 13.1%, and 72.7%; 61.5%, 24.2%, 12.4%, and 78.3%; and 46.2%, 50.2%, 14.0%, and 84.2%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: HS results did not allow a reliable prediction of SVI within PCa patients. Despite, the application of HS signal volume cut-offs (>0.2 and >0.5 mL), the prediction of SVI within PCa patients remained insufficient.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25443925     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.06.050

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  4 in total

1.  True targeting-derived prostate biopsy: HistoScanning™ remained inadequate despite advanced technical efforts.

Authors:  Jonas Schiffmann; Gisa Mehring; Pierre Tennstedt; Lukas Manka; Katharina Boehm; Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Peter Hammerer; Markus Graefen; Georg Salomon
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-07-28       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 2.  HistoScanningTM to Detect and Characterize Prostate Cancer-a Review of Existing Literature.

Authors:  James S Wysock; Alex Xu; Clement Orczyk; Samir S Taneja
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-10-24       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 3.  Controversial evidence for the use of HistoScanning™ in the detection of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Jonas Schiffmann; Lukas Manka; Katharina Boehm; Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Markus Graefen; Peter Hammerer; Georg Salomon
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-04-10       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of Histoscanning™ in prostate cancer diagnostics.

Authors:  Andrey Morozov; Vasiliy Kozlov; Juan Gomez Rivas; Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh; Evgeniy Bezrukov; Alexander Amosov; Eric Barret; Mark Taratkin; Georg Salomon; Thomas R W Herrmann; Ali Gozen; Dmitry Enikeev
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-04-07       Impact factor: 4.226

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.