Literature DB >> 2659827

Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate.

K K Hodge1, J E McNeal, M K Terris, T A Stamey.   

Abstract

Random systematic ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate were compared to directed biopsies of specific hypoechoic defects in 136 men with abnormal prostates on digital rectal examination. Prostate cancer was diagnosed in 83 of 136 patients (62 per cent). In 80 of 83 individuals (94 per cent) the cancer was detected by random systematic biopsies alone. Of 57 men in whom random systematic and directed biopsies were obtained the results of biopsy agreed in 86 per cent, while in 9 per cent random systematic biopsies found cancers missed by directed biopsies and in 5 per cent directed biopsies diagnosed cancers missed by random systematic prostate biopsies. Ultrasound guided random systematic biopsy is simple and easily learned. When combined with additional directed biopsies of the rare hypoechoic areas not included in the pattern of systematic sampling, it provides a highly accurate means to diagnose prostate cancer, minimizing observer and sampling errors. This technique of prostate mapping with 6, 1.5 cm. cores provides valuable additional information on cancer volume, Gleason grade and the potential location of surgically positive margins, all without compromising the operation or the chance for a surgical cure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2659827     DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)38664-0

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


  224 in total

1.  A catheter tactile sensor for measuring hardness of soft tissue: measurement in a silicone model and in an in vitro human prostate model.

Authors:  A Eklund; A Bergh; O A Lindahl
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 2.602

Review 2.  Prostate cancer: a comprehensive review.

Authors:  S N Pentyala; J Lee; K Hsieh; W C Waltzer; A Trocchia; L Musacchia; M J Rebecchi; S A Khan
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 3.064

3.  Variations in the processing of prostatic needle cores in the UK; what is safe?

Authors:  O Biedrzycki; M Varma; D M Berney
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.411

4.  Improving diagnostic accuracy of prostate carcinoma by systematic random map-biopsy.

Authors:  J Szabó; G Hegedûs; K Bartók; T Kerényi; A Végh; I Romics; B Szende
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 3.201

5.  Prospective blinded comparison of real-time sonoelastography targeted versus randomised biopsy of the prostate in the primary and re-biopsy setting.

Authors:  Roman Ganzer; Andreas Brandtner; Wolf F Wieland; Hans-Martin Fritsche
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-04-26       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 6.  Prostate cancer detection strategies.

Authors:  Timothy C Brand; Javier Hernandez; Edith D Canby-Hagino; Joseph W Basler; Ian M Thompson
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 3.092

7.  [Complications of transrectal prostate biopsy. Determination of current status].

Authors:  H W Gottfried; B Volkmer
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 8.  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

Review 9.  Prostate-specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ian M Thompson; Donna P Ankerst
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2007-06-19       Impact factor: 8.262

10.  Diagnosis, prognosis and management of incidentally found prostate cancer.

Authors:  P J Davidson
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  1993-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.