Entrar/Registro  
HOME SPANISH
 
Cirugía y Cirujanos
   
MENU

Contents by Year, Volume and Issue

Table of Contents

General Information

Instructions for Authors

Message to Editor

Editorial Board






>Journals >Cirugía y Cirujanos >Year 2008, Issue 2


Serrano-Brambila E, López-Sámano VA, Montoya-Martínez G, Espinoza-Guerrero X, González-Pérez J, Martínez-Cornelio A
Two methods for transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate:systematic vs. guided for suspect echogenic lesion
Cir Cir 2008; 76 (2)

Language: Español
References: 17
Page: 139-143
PDF: 55.64 Kb.

[Full text - PDF]

ABSTRACT

Objective: We undertook this study to determine the efficiency of the ultrasound-guided transrectal prostate biopsy applying two techniques: systematic extended vs. suspicious sonographic areas.
Methods: Medical files and histopathological reports were reviewed of patients who were treated at the Specialties Hospital of the 21st Century Medical National Center in Mexico City with suspicion of prostate cancer (T1, T2 and PSA ‹10 ng/ml). Patients had ultrasound-guided transrectal prostate biopsy applying two techniques: systematic extended vs. hypoechoic suspicious sonographic areas. Studies were carried out from January 1, 2005 to July 2006.
Results: Of 145 selected patients submitted to ultrasound-guided transrectal prostate biopsy, systematic extended biopsy (Group I) was carried out in 73 (50.3%), taking on average 11.75 cylinders per patient. In 72 (49.6%) patients, biopsies were taken on suspicious sonographic areas (Group II), taking on average 4.02 cylinders. In Group I, 36 (49.3%) patients were positive vs. Group II, where 20 (27.7%) patients were positive (p ‹0.01) with an estimation of risk in favor of Group I, determining a probability 2.5 times higher of positivity with this technique (confidence interval of 95%: range 1.2-5) and a better performance in 22%.
Conclusion: Systematic extended ultrasound-guided transrectal prostate biopsy represents a technique with a superior rate of efficiency for suspicious sonographic areas using ultrasound-guided transrectal prostate biopsy and has proven over time to be the best prostate biopsy technique for diagnosis of prostate cancer. It must be considered the method of choice.


Key words: Prostate cancer, ultrasound-guided transrectal prostate biopsy, prostatic specific antigen.


REFERENCES

  1. 1. Herranz Amo F. Ecografía transrectal de próstata. Barcelona: Doyma;1998.

  2. 2. Lee F, Gray JM, McLeary RD. Transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: localization, echogenicity, histopathology, and staging. Prostate 1985;7:117-129.

  3. 3. Hodge K, McNeal JE, Terris MK. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 1989;142:71.

  4. 4. Stamey TA. Making the most out of six systematic sextant biopsies. Urology 1995;45:2.

  5. 5. Eskew LS, Bare RL, McCullough DL. Systematic 5 region prostate biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosis carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1997;157:199.

  6. 6. Babaian RJ, Toi A, Kamoi K. A comparative analysis of sextant and an extended 11-core multisite directed biopsy strategy. J Urol 2000;163:152.

  7. 7. Stewart CS, Leibovich BC, Weaver AL. Prostate cancer diagnosis using a saturation needle biopsy technique after previous negative sextant biopsies. J Urol 2001;166:86.

  8. 8. Damiano R, Autorino R, Perdona S. Are extended biopsies really necessary to improve prostate cancer detection. Prostate Cancer Prostate Dis 2003;6:250.

  9. 9. Hankey BF, Feuer EJ, Clegg LX. Cancer surveillance series: interpreting trends in prostate cancer. I. Evidence of the effects of screening in recent prostate cancer incidence, mortality, and survival rates. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1017.

  10. 10. Karakiowicz PL, Bazinot M, Aprikian AC. Outcome of sextant biopsy according to gland volume. Urology 1997;49:55.

  11. 11. Ellis WJ, Chetner MP, Preston SD, Brawer MK. Diagnosis of prostatic carcinoma: the yield of serum prostate specific antigen, digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasonography. J Urol 1994;52:1520.

  12. 12. Eskew LS, Matlaga BR, McCullough DL. Prostate biopsy, indications and technique. J Urol 2003;169:12-19.

  13. 13. Taille A, Antiphon P, Salomon L. Prospective evaluation of a 21 sample needle biopsy procedures designed to improve prostate cancer detection rate. J Urol 2003;61:1181.

  14. 14. Jewet HJ. The present status of radical prostatectomy for stages A and B prostatic cancer. Urol Clin North Am 1975;2:105.

  15. 15. Catalona WJ, Patin AW, Slawin KM, Flanigan R. Use of the percentage of free prostate specific antigen to enhance differentiation of prostate cancer from benign prostatic disease: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. JAMA 1998;279:1542.

  16. 16. Chen YT, Ludoror AA, Thiel RP, Carlson G. Using proportions of free to total prostate specific antigen, age, and total prostate specific antigen to predict the probability of prostate cancer. Urology 1996;47:518.

  17. 17. Presti JC, Chang JJ, Bhargava V, Shinohara K. The optimal systematic prostate biopsy scheme should include 8 rather than 6 biopsies: results of a prospective clinical trial. J Urol 2000;163:163.






>Journals >Cirugía y Cirujanos >Year 2008, Issue 2
 

· Journal Index 
· Links 
       
Copyright 2010