4.4 Article

Role of transperineal six-core prostate biopsy in patients with prostate-specific antigen level greater than 10 ng/ml and abnormal digital rectal examination findings

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 67, 期 3, 页码 555-558

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.09.036

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. To define whether six-core biopsies still have a role in patients presenting with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels greater than 10 ng/mL and abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) findings. Recent studies have suggested that the six-core biopsy is inadequate for the diagnosis of prostate cancer; however, it remains controversial whether an increased number of cores is justified in all patients. Methods. From June 2002 to February 2005, 122 (18.8%) of 650 patients underwent prostate biopsy because of a PSA level greater than 10 ng/mL and abnormal DRE findings. All patients underwent transperineal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in a standardized fashion: a six-core biopsy was performed first, followed by six additional cores during the same session, four in the peripheral and two in the transition zone. Results. The detection rate in patients with a PSA level greater than 10 ng/mL and abnormal DRE findings was 72.1% (88 of 122) and 75.4% (92 of 122) using the 6-core and 12-core biopsy, respectively. One case of tumor was missed by the six-core biopsy among patients with a PSA level greater than 15 ng/mL and abnormal DRE findings. No cases of tumor were missed by six-core biopsy in the group with a PSA level greater than 20 ng/mL and abnormal DRE findings. Conclusions. Six-core biopsy provided a similar cancer detection rate compared with 12-core biopsy in patients with PSA levels greater than 10 ng/mL and abnormal DRE findings. An initial approach with 6-core biopsy is reasonable in patients with a PSA level greater than 10 ng/mL and abnormal DRE findings and is advocated in those with PSA greater than 20 ng/mL and abnormal DRE findings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据