-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Cancer detection rates and inter-examiner variability of MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy and systematic transrectal biopsy
M. Zalesky, J. Stejskal, I. Minarik, V. Adamcova, M. Babjuk, R. Zachoval
Jazyk angličtina Země Česko
Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články
Grantová podpora
NV15-27047A
MZ0
CEP - Centrální evidence projektů
Digitální knihovna NLK
Plný text - Článek
NLK
Directory of Open Access Journals
od 2001
Free Medical Journals
od 1998
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
od 2007-06-01
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
od 2001
PubMed
31602045
DOI
10.5507/bp.2019.050
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- MeSH
- intervenční ultrasonografie metody normy MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- magnetická rezonanční tomografie metody normy MeSH
- nádory prostaty diagnóza patofyziologie MeSH
- palpační vyšetření konečníku metody normy MeSH
- prospektivní studie MeSH
- reprodukovatelnost výsledků MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- směrnice pro lékařskou praxi jako téma * MeSH
- ultrazvukem navigovaná biopsie metody normy MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
BACKGROUND: Software-based MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy depends on the coordination of several steps, and inter-examiner differences could influence the results. The aim of this bicentric prospective study was to compare the detection rates of MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy (TG) and systematic biopsy (SB), and the detection rates of examiners with different levels of previous experience in prostate biopsy. METHODS: A total of 419 patients underwent MRI based on a suspicion of prostate cancer with elevated PSA levels. MRI was positive in 395 patients (221 in the first biopsy group [FB] and 174 in the repeated biopsy group [RB]). A subsequent TG, followed by a SB, was performed on these patients by four different examiners. RESULTS: In the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, a significant difference was found for TG+SB against SB in the RB group (35.1% vs. 25.3%, P=0.047). In the detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer, the SB had a significantly higher detection rate than TG in both subgroups (FB: 11.9% vs. 4.7%, P=0.008; RB: 13.8% vs. 6.9%, P=0.034). A significant difference was found between the four examiners in the FB for TG (P=0.028), SB (P=0.036), and TG+SB (P=0.017). CONCLUSION: MRI/TRUS TG in combination with SB had significantly higher detection rates than SB in the RB group only. Differences in detection rates between examiners were dependent on the level of previous experience with TRUS guided biopsy.
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
Literatura
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc21021184
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20210908164858.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 210806s2020 xr d f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.5507/bp.2019.050 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)31602045
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xr
- 100 1_
- $a Záleský, Miroslav $7 ola2004220082 $u Department of Urology, Thomayer Hospital and 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic $u Department of Urology, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
- 245 10
- $a Cancer detection rates and inter-examiner variability of MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy and systematic transrectal biopsy / $c M. Zalesky, J. Stejskal, I. Minarik, V. Adamcova, M. Babjuk, R. Zachoval
- 504 __
- $a Literatura
- 520 9_
- $a BACKGROUND: Software-based MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy depends on the coordination of several steps, and inter-examiner differences could influence the results. The aim of this bicentric prospective study was to compare the detection rates of MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy (TG) and systematic biopsy (SB), and the detection rates of examiners with different levels of previous experience in prostate biopsy. METHODS: A total of 419 patients underwent MRI based on a suspicion of prostate cancer with elevated PSA levels. MRI was positive in 395 patients (221 in the first biopsy group [FB] and 174 in the repeated biopsy group [RB]). A subsequent TG, followed by a SB, was performed on these patients by four different examiners. RESULTS: In the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, a significant difference was found for TG+SB against SB in the RB group (35.1% vs. 25.3%, P=0.047). In the detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer, the SB had a significantly higher detection rate than TG in both subgroups (FB: 11.9% vs. 4.7%, P=0.008; RB: 13.8% vs. 6.9%, P=0.034). A significant difference was found between the four examiners in the FB for TG (P=0.028), SB (P=0.036), and TG+SB (P=0.017). CONCLUSION: MRI/TRUS TG in combination with SB had significantly higher detection rates than SB in the RB group only. Differences in detection rates between examiners were dependent on the level of previous experience with TRUS guided biopsy.
- 650 _2
- $a senioři $7 D000368
- 650 _2
- $a palpační vyšetření konečníku $x metody $x normy $7 D051517
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a ultrazvukem navigovaná biopsie $x metody $x normy $7 D061705
- 650 _2
- $a magnetická rezonanční tomografie $x metody $x normy $7 D008279
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 12
- $a směrnice pro lékařskou praxi jako téma $7 D017410
- 650 _2
- $a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
- 650 _2
- $a nádory prostaty $x diagnóza $x patofyziologie $7 D011471
- 650 _2
- $a reprodukovatelnost výsledků $7 D015203
- 650 _2
- $a intervenční ultrasonografie $x metody $x normy $7 D018084
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Stejskal, Jiří $7 xx0236659 $u Department of Urology, Thomayer Hospital and 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Minárik, Ivo, $d 1977- $7 xx0227806 $u Department of Urology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Adamcová, Vanda $7 xx0236641 $u Department of Urology, Thomayer Hospital and 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Babjuk, Marko, $d 1961- $7 jn20020716353 $u Department of Urology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Zachoval, Roman, $d 1967- $7 mzk2004248672 $u Department of Urology, Thomayer Hospital and 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic $u Department of Urology, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
- 773 0_
- $w MED00012606 $t Biomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacky, Olomouc, Czechoslovakia $x 1213-8118 $g Roč. 164, č. 3 (2020), s. 314-319
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31602045 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b A 1502 $c 958 $y p $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20210806 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20210906172645 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1694791 $s 1141637
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2020 $b 164 $c 3 $d 314-319 $e 20191010 $i 1213-8118 $m Biomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacký, Olomouc Czech Republic $n Biomed. Pap. Fac. Med. Palacký Univ. Olomouc Czech Repub. (Print) $x MED00012606
- GRA __
- $a NV15-27047A $p MZ0
- LZP __
- $b NLK118 $a Pubmed-20210806