Literature DB >> 7542138

Are pelvic computed tomography, bone scan and pelvic lymphadenectomy necessary in the staging of prostatic cancer?

Z Levran1, J A Gonzalez, A C Diokno, S Z Jafri, B W Steinert.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness and economy of pelvic computed tomography (CT), bone scan and pelvic lymphadenectomy as staging modalities in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. The use of prostate specific antigen (PSA) and Gleason's score as adjuncts to predict extracapsular disease were also evaluated and their economic implications examined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 1990 and June 1993, 861 men were newly diagnosed with prostate cancer, of whom 409 underwent surgery. All patients underwent pelvic CT scans and PSA analysis. Patients undergoing surgery had pre-operative bone scans and Gleason's scoring of their pathological tissue.
RESULTS: Only 13 (1.5%) of 861 men had positive pelvic CT scans. Of the 409 patients who underwent surgery, all had negative pelvic CT and bone scans, and all underwent a modified pelvic lymphadenectomy; 192 (47%) had extracapsular disease. Only 15 (3.7%) patients who underwent surgery were found to have positive nodes.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of pelvic CT and bone scans for clinical staging in patients with a PSA level of < or = 20 ng/mL should not be advocated because they have a very low yield and are not cost effective. We question the role of a modified pelvic lymphadenectomy for staging purposes, either by an open or laparoscopic procedure, because the yield of positive diagnoses is very low.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7542138     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1995.tb07390.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Urol        ISSN: 0007-1331


  13 in total

1.  Radiation doses in computed tomography. The increasing doses of radiation need to be controlled.

Authors:  M M Rehani; M Berry
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-03-04

Review 2.  Optimal cost-effective staging evaluations in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Gregory L Lacy; Douglas W Soderdahl; Javier Hernandez
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 3.  Capromab pendetide. A review of its use as an imaging agent in prostate cancer.

Authors:  H M Lamb; D Faulds
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 3.923

Review 4.  The economic costs of early stage prostate cancer.

Authors:  Christopher S Saigal; Mark S Litwin
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  The value of serum prostate specific antigen and other parameters in detecting bone metastases in prostate cancer.

Authors:  S Ataus; A Citçi; B Alici; A U Onder; K Sönmezoğlu; A Erözenci; V Solok
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 6.  Stage T1c prostate cancer: defining the appropriate staging evaluation and the role for pelvic lymphadenectomy.

Authors:  M C Beduschi; R Beduschi; J E Oesterling
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  The role of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in predicting extraprostatic extension and seminal vesicle invasion in clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Seo Yong Park; Jung Jun Kim; Tae Heon Kim; Soo Hyun Lim; Deok Hyun Han; Byung Kwan Park; Chan Kyo Kim; Ghee Young Kwon; Han Yong Choi; Hyun Moo Lee
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2010-05-19

Review 8.  Updated trends in imaging use in men diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Authors:  S P Porten; A Smith; A Y Odisho; M S Litwin; C S Saigal; P R Carroll; M R Cooperberg
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2014-05-13       Impact factor: 5.554

Review 9.  Management strategies for locally advanced prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ashesh B Jani
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 3.923

10.  Comparison of pelvic phased-array versus endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging at 3 Tesla for local staging of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Bum Soo Kim; Tae-Hwan Kim; Tae Gyun Kwon; Eun Sang Yoo
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 2.759

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.