Searching for just a few words should be enough to get started. If you need to make more complex queries, use the tips below to guide you.
Article type: Research Article
Authors: Xie, Shao Weia; 1 | Dong, Bai Jun2; 1 | Xia, Jian Guoa | Li, Hong Lia | Zhang, Shi Juna | Du, Jinga | Yang, Wen Qia | Li, Feng Huaa; * | Xue, Weib; *
Affiliations: [a] Department of Ultrasound, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China | [b] Department of Urology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
Correspondence: [*] Corresponding authors: Feng Hua Li, Department of Ultrasound, or Wei Xue, Department of Urology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 160 Pujian Rd, 200127 Shanghai, China. Tel.: +86 021 68383396; E-mails: [email protected]. (F.H. Li), and [email protected]. (W. Xue).
Note: [1] These authors contributed equally to this work and should be considered co-first authors.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the ability of contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasound (CETRUS) scanning for prostate cancer detection in different area, compared with conventional transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). METHODS:228 patients underwent TRUS-guided prostate biopsy after examinations of TRUS and CETRUS scanning. Cancer detection between CETRUS and TRUS were compared by patient and by site in different areas (right, left; base, mid-gland, apex). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CETRUS. RESULTS:89 patients were malignant and 48 patients were significant cancer. Compared with TRUS, CETRUS could increase the detection rates of overall and significant cancer (P = 0.008; P = 0.031). CETRUS had higher sensitivity, specificity (except right lobe), accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) in total, right and left lobe (P < 0.05). The sensitivity were greater for CETRUS in all areas except left base and right apex (P < 0.05). The accuracy were greater for CETRUS in all areas except left mid-gland and right apex (P < 0.05). ROC analysis showed CETRUS totally got the AUC of 0.816. The AUC was higher in left lobe than right lobe (0.837 vs. 0.793). It was most accurate at the base (0.833), then mid-gland (0.826), and lowest in apex (0.772). CONCLUSIONS:CETRUS had a significant advantage over conventional TRUS for prostate cancer detection in different areas. CETRUS much more easily missed the cancer in apex, we must focus more on apex and may add other imaging modalities to improve the visualization and detection of prostate cancer.
Keywords: Prostate cancer, ultrasonography, contrast agent, scanning
DOI: 10.3233/CH-170346
Journal: Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation, vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 281-290, 2018
IOS Press, Inc.
6751 Tepper Drive
Clifton, VA 20124
USA
Tel: +1 703 830 6300
Fax: +1 703 830 2300
[email protected]
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to [email protected]
IOS Press
Nieuwe Hemweg 6B
1013 BG Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 688 3355
Fax: +31 20 687 0091
[email protected]
For editorial issues, permissions, book requests, submissions and proceedings, contact the Amsterdam office [email protected]
Inspirees International (China Office)
Ciyunsi Beili 207(CapitaLand), Bld 1, 7-901
100025, Beijing
China
Free service line: 400 661 8717
Fax: +86 10 8446 7947
[email protected]
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to [email protected]
如果您在出版方面需要帮助或有任何建, 件至: [email protected]