| Literature DB >> 31814940 |
Mehrdad Mostafaloo1, Naser Ghaemian2, Karimollah Hajian-Tilaki3, Emadoddin Moudi4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bladder cancer ranks ninth in world-wide cancer incidence and is 2.5-4 times more common in men, and painless gross hematuria is its typical clinical symptom. Cystoscopy is used to evaluate the cause of hematuria in bladder while the use and reliability of ultrasonography is questionable for this purpose. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare abdominal ultrasonography and rigid cystoscopy in the diagnosis of bladder tumors in Babol Shahid Beheshti Hospital.Entities:
Keywords: Bladder; Cystoscopy; Hematuria; Prostate; Sonography
Year: 2019 PMID: 31814940 PMCID: PMC6856913 DOI: 10.22088/cjim.10.4.417
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Caspian J Intern Med ISSN: 2008-6164
Patients’ demographic and clinical characteristics (n=60)
|
|
|
|---|---|
|
| |
| <50 | 12(20) |
|
| |
| Male | 37(61.7) |
|
| |
| Employee | 19(31.7) |
|
| |
| Urban | 42(70) |
|
| |
| Yes | 6(10) |
|
| |
| Yes | 5(8.3) |
|
| |
| <25 | 20(33.3) |
|
| |
| Yes | 10(16.7) |
|
| |
| Yes | 29 (48.3) |
|
| |
| Microscopic hematuria | 40(66.7) |
|
| |
| Diabetes | 12(20) |
Results of patients’ cystoscopy and sonography and the concordance of both methods (n=60)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Yes | 7(11.7) | 7(11.7) | 5(8.3) | <0.001 |
|
| ||||
| Polypoids | 5(8.3) | 3(5) | 3(5) | <0.001 |
|
| ||||
| Base | 4(6.7) | 2(3.3) | 2(3.3) | <0.001 |
|
| ||||
| <5mm | 2(3.3) | - | - | <0.001 |
|
| ||||
| Yes | - | 2(3.3) | - | - |
|
| ||||
| Yes | - | - | - | - |
|
| ||||
| Narrow | - | 1(1.7) | - | - |
|
| ||||
| Yes | 30(50) | 10(16.7) | 7(11.7) | 0.171 |
|
| ||||
| Yes | 5(13.5) | 3(8.1) | 3(8.1) | <0.001 |
|
| ||||
| Yes | - | 1(1.7) | 1(1.7) | - |
The bulging of prostate median lobe was evaluated in men (n=37)
Sensitivity, Specificity and other characteristics in sonography compared to cystoscopy and their 95% confidence interval
|
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Positive | 5(8.3) | 2(3.3) | 7(11.7) | 3(5) | 3(8.1) | - |
| Negative | 2(3.3) | 51(85) | 23(38.3) | 27(45) | 2(5.4) | 32(86.5) |
| Sensitivity* | 71.43% | %70 | %80.00 | |||
| Specificity* | %96.23 | %54 | %91.67 | |||
| Positive predictive values* | %71.43 | %23.33 | %57.14 | |||
| Negative predictive values* | %96.23 | %90 | %97.06 | |||
| LR+* | 18.93 | 1.52 | 9.6 | |||
| LR-* | 0.30 | 0.56 | 0.22 | |||
| Prevalence * | %11.67 | %16.67 | %12.20 | |||
| Accuracy * | %93.33 | %56.67 | %90.24 | |||
* The pretenses show the 95% confidence interval for indexes of accuracy