Contemporary ultrasound guided biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer
2001; British Institute of Radiology; Volume: 13; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1259/img.13.1.130018
ISSN1748-8818
Autores Tópico(s)Urological Disorders and Treatments
ResumoPaperContemporary ultrasound guided biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancerR ClementsR ClementsDepartment of Clinical Radiology, Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport NP20 5BA, UKSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:28 Jan 2014https://doi.org/10.1259/img.13.1.130018SectionsPDF/EPUBFull Text ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail About References 1 Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics, 1999. CA Cancer J Clin 1999;49:8–31. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar2 Presti JC Jr, Chang JJ, Bhargava V, Shinohara K. The optimal systematic prostate biopsy scheme should include 8 rather than 6 biopsies: results ofa prospective clinical trial. J Urol 2000;163:163–7. Crossref Medline ISI, Google Scholar3 Oesterling JE, Jacobsen SJ, Chute CG, Guess HA, Panser LA, Girman CJ, et al. The establishment of age‐specific reference ranges for prostate‐specific antigen. J Urol 1993;149:510A. Google Scholar4 DeAntoni EP, Crawford ED, Oesterling JE, Ross CA, Berger ER, McLeod DG, et al. Age‐ and race‐specific reference ranges for prostate‐specific antigen from a large community‐based study. Urology 1996;48:234–9. Crossref, Google Scholar5 Borer JG, Sherman J, Solomon MC, Plawker MW, Macchia RJ. Age specific prostate specific antigen reference ranges: population specific. J Urol 1998;159:444–8. Crossref, Google Scholar6 Catalona WJ, Hudson MA, Scardino PT, Richie JP, Ahmann FR, Flanigan RC, et al. Selection of optimal prostate specific antigen cutoffs for early detection of prostate cancer: receiver operating characteristic curves. J Urol 1994;152:2037–42. Google Scholar7 McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA. Zonal distribution of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 1988;12:897–906. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar8 Stamey TA, Sozen TS, Yemoto CM, McNeal JE. Classification of localized untreated prostate cancer based on 791 men treated only with radical prostatectomy: common ground for therapeutic trials and TNM subgroups. J Urol 1998;159:2009–12. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar9 Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CE. An analysis of 148 consecutive transition zone cancers: clinical and histological characteristics. J Urol 2000;163:1751–5. Crossref, Google Scholar10 Jewett HJ. Significance of the palpable prostatic nodule. JAMA 1956;160:838–9. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar11 Clements R, Griffiths GJ, Peeling WB, Roberts EE, Evans KT. How accurate is the index finger? A comparison of digital and ultrasound examination of the prostatic nodule. Clin Radiol 1988;39:87–9. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar12 Griffiths GJ, Clements R, Jones DR, Roberts EE, Peeling WB, Evans KT. The ultrasound appearances of prostatic cancer with histologic correlation. Clin Radiol 1987;38:219–27. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar13 Dahnert WF, Hamper UM, Eggleston JC, Walsh PC, Sanders RC. Prostatic evaluation by transrectal sonography with histopathologic correlation: the echopenic appearance of early carcinoma. Radiology 1986;158:97–102. Medline, Google Scholar14 Lee F, Torp‐Pedersen S, Littrup PJ, McLeary RD, McHugh TA, Smid AP, et al. Hypoechoic lesions of the prostate: clinical relevance of tumor size, digital rectal examination, and prostate‐specific antigen. Radiology 1989;170:29–32. Medline, Google Scholar15 Shinohara K, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. The appearance of prostate cancer on transrectal ultrasonography: correlation of imaging and pathological examinations. J Urol 1989;142:76–82. Medline, Google Scholar16 Fleshner NE, O'Sullivan O, Premdass C, Fair WR. Clinical significance of small (less than 0.2 cm3) hypoechoic lesions in men with normal digital rectal examinations and prostate‐specific antigen levels less than 10 ng/ml. Urology 1999;53:356–8. Crossref, Google Scholar17 Greene DR, Wheeler TM, Egawa S, Dunn JK, Scardino PT. A comparison of the morphological features of cancer arising in the transition zone and in the peripheral zone of the prostate. J Urol 1991;146:1069–76. Google Scholar18 Downey DB. Power Doppler in prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 1997;7:93–9. Crossref, Google Scholar19 Halpern EJ, Strup SE. Using gray‐scale and color and power Doppler sonography to detect prostatic cancer. AJR 2000;174:623–7. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar20 Rifkin MD, Alexander AA, Helinek TG, Merton DA. Color Doppler as an adjunct to prostate ultrasound. Scan J Urol Nephrol Suppl 1991;137:85–9. Google Scholar21 Kelly IMG, Lees WR, Rickards D. Prostate cancer and the role of color Doppler US. Radiology 1993;189:153–6. Crossref Medline ISI, Google Scholar22 Lavoipierre AM, Snow RM, Frydenberg M, Gunter D, Reisner G, Royce PL, et al. Prostatic cancer: role of color Doppler imaging in transrectal sonography. AJR 1998;171:205–10. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar23 Rickards D, Gillams AR, Deng J, Lees WR. Do intravascular ultrasound Doppler contrast agents improve transrectal ultrasound diagnosis of prostatecancer? Radiology 1998; (Suppl.): RSNA 98 meeting. Google Scholar24 Frauscher F, Helweg G, Strasser H, Huelsen A, Janetschek G, Bartsch G, et al. Contrast enhanced color Doppler ultrasound in the diagnostic evaluation of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 1999;9(Suppl.):S18 (ECR 99 meeting). Google Scholar25 Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 1989;142:71–5. Medline, Google Scholar26 Karakiewicz PI, Bazinet M, Aprikian AG, Trudel C, Aronson S, Nachabe M, et al. Outcome of sextant biopsy according to gland volume. Urology 1997;49:55–9. Crossref, Google Scholar27 Keetch DW, Catalona WJ, Smith DS. Serial prostatic biopsies in men with persistently elevated serum prostate specific antigen values. J Urol 1994;151:1571–4. Google Scholar28 Fleshner NE, O'Sullivan M, Fair WR. Prevalence and predictors of a positive repeat transrectal ultrasound guided needle biopsy of the prostate. J Urol 1997;158:505–9. Crossref, Google Scholar29 Borboroglu PG, Comer SW, Riffenburgh RH, Amling CL. Extensive repeat transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in patients with previousbenign sextant biopsies. J Urol 2000;163:158–62. Crossref, Google Scholar30 Eskew LA, Bare RL, McCullogh DL. Systematic 5 region prostate biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1997;157:199–203. Crossref, Google Scholar31 Norberg M, Egevad L, Holmberg L, Sparen P, Norlen BJ, Busch C. The sextant protocol for ultrasound‐guided core biopsies of the prostate underestimates the presence of cancer. Urology 1997;50:562–6. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar32 Salomon L, Colombel M, Patard JJ, Bellot J, Chopin DK, Abbou CC. Use of additional mid biopsies to improve local assessment of prostate cancer in patients with one positive sextant biopsy. Eur Urol 1988;34:313–7. Crossref, Google Scholar33 Terris MK, McNeal JE, Stamey TA. Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer by transrectal ultrasound‐guided systematic biopsy. J Urol 1992;148:829–32. Google Scholar34 Goto Y, Ohori M, Arakawa A, Kattan MW, Wheeler TM, et al. Distinguishing clinically important from unimportant prostate cancers before treatment: value of systematic biopsies. J Urol 1996;156:1059–63. Crossref, Google Scholar35 Dugan JA, Bostwick DG, Myers RP, Qian J, Bergstrahl EJ, Oesterling JE. The definition and preoperative prediction of clinically insignificant prostate cancer. JAMA 1996;275:288–94. Crossref, Google Scholar36 Crawford ED, Hirano D, Werahera PN, Lucia MS, DeAntoni EP, Daneshgari F, et al. Computer modeling of prostate biopsy: tumor size and location—not clinical significance—determine cancer detection. J Urol 1998;159:1260–4. Crossref, Google Scholar37 Rabbani F, Stroumbakis N, Kava BR, Cookson MS, Fair WR. Incidence and clinical significance of false‐negative sextant prostate biopsies. J Urol 1998;159:1247–50. Crossref Medline ISI, Google Scholar38 Clements R, Aideyan OU, Griffiths GJ, Peeling WB. Side effects and patient acceptability of transrectal biopsy of the prostate. Clin Radiol 1993;47:125–6. Crossref, Google Scholar39 Rodriguez LV, Terris MK. Risks and complications of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsy; a prospective study and review of the literature. J Urol 1998;160:2115–20. Crossref, Google Scholar40 Taylor HM, Bingham JB. Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy. J Antimicrob Chemother 1997;39:115–7. Crossref, Google Scholar41 Brewster SF, Rooney N, Kabala J, Feneley RCL. Fatal anaerobic infection following transrectal biopsy of a rare prostatic tumour. Br J Urol 1993;77:977–8. Crossref, Google Scholar42 Borer A, Gilad J, Sikuler E, Riesenberg K, Schlaeffer F, Buskila D. Fatal Clostridium sordellii ischio‐rectal abscess with septicaemia complicating ultrasound‐guided transrectal prostate biopsy. J Infect 1999;38:128–9. Crossref, Google Scholar43 Connor SE, Wingate JP. Management of patients treated with aspirin or warfarin and evaluation of haemostasis prior to prostatic biopsy; a survey of current practice amongst radiologists and urologists. Clin Radiol 1999;54:598–603. Crossref, Google Scholar44 Naughton CK, Ornstein DK, Smith DS, Catalona WJ. Pain and morbidity of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a prospective randomised trial of 6 versus 1 cores. J Urol 2000;163:168–71. Crossref, Google Scholar Previous article Next article FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 13, Issue 1April 2001Pages: 1vi-69 © The British Institute of Radiology History Published onlineJanuary 28,2014 Metrics Download PDF
Referência(s)