Diagnostic Efficacy of Transrectal Ultrasound vs Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Carcinoma Prostate: A Cross-sectional Study

K. Lohith, V. Gowda, Sanjana Satish
{"title":"Diagnostic Efficacy of Transrectal Ultrasound vs Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Carcinoma Prostate: A Cross-sectional Study","authors":"K. Lohith, V. Gowda, Sanjana Satish","doi":"10.7860/ijars/2023/57062.2901","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: The high incidence and increasing awareness of prostate cancer, along with ongoing development of new and improved treatment methods have generated considerable need for imaging techniques that allow for accurate detection and staging of tumour prior to treatment. Aim: To compare the findings of Transrectal Ultrasound (TRUS) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis and localisation of carcinoma prostate. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in the Department of Radiodiagnosis, Mysore Medical College, Mysore, Karnataka, India from April 2018 to June 2019. This study included 43 male patients, with age ranging from 49 to 76 years. They underwent TRUS, MRI and TRUS guided 12- core biopsies after being suspected with prostate cancer based on high Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) values (greater than 4.0 ng/mL) or abnormal Digital Rectal Examination (DRE) findings. A cross table was used to compare the histopathology results, TRUS and MRI findings, from which sensitivity, specificity, Positive Predictive Value (PPV) and Negative Predictive Value (NPV) were calculated. Results: Total of 43 male patients were included with mean age of 64.8 years. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of TRUS for detection of malignancy was 69.70, 80, 92 and 44.44 respectively and for MRI, it was 87.88%, 70%, 90.63% and 63.64% respectively. In addition, MRI detected lymphadenopathy in three patients and skeletal metastasis in four patients. Conclusion: MRI can improve the false negative biopsies resulting due to the inability of TRUS in the detection of abnormal areas, by showing the exact area of abnormality.","PeriodicalId":56235,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Anatomy Radiology and Surgery","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Anatomy Radiology and Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7860/ijars/2023/57062.2901","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The high incidence and increasing awareness of prostate cancer, along with ongoing development of new and improved treatment methods have generated considerable need for imaging techniques that allow for accurate detection and staging of tumour prior to treatment. Aim: To compare the findings of Transrectal Ultrasound (TRUS) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis and localisation of carcinoma prostate. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in the Department of Radiodiagnosis, Mysore Medical College, Mysore, Karnataka, India from April 2018 to June 2019. This study included 43 male patients, with age ranging from 49 to 76 years. They underwent TRUS, MRI and TRUS guided 12- core biopsies after being suspected with prostate cancer based on high Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) values (greater than 4.0 ng/mL) or abnormal Digital Rectal Examination (DRE) findings. A cross table was used to compare the histopathology results, TRUS and MRI findings, from which sensitivity, specificity, Positive Predictive Value (PPV) and Negative Predictive Value (NPV) were calculated. Results: Total of 43 male patients were included with mean age of 64.8 years. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of TRUS for detection of malignancy was 69.70, 80, 92 and 44.44 respectively and for MRI, it was 87.88%, 70%, 90.63% and 63.64% respectively. In addition, MRI detected lymphadenopathy in three patients and skeletal metastasis in four patients. Conclusion: MRI can improve the false negative biopsies resulting due to the inability of TRUS in the detection of abnormal areas, by showing the exact area of abnormality.
经直肠超声与磁共振对前列腺癌诊断效能的横断面研究
导言:前列腺癌的高发病率和人们对前列腺癌认识的提高,以及新的和改进的治疗方法的不断发展,产生了对成像技术的巨大需求,这些技术可以在治疗前准确检测和分期肿瘤。目的:比较经直肠超声(TRUS)与磁共振成像(MRI)对前列腺癌的诊断和定位。材料与方法:本横断面研究于2018年4月至2019年6月在印度卡纳塔克邦迈索尔迈索尔医学院放射诊断科进行。本研究纳入43例男性患者,年龄49 ~ 76岁。根据高前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)值(大于4.0 ng/mL)或直肠指检(DRE)异常发现怀疑前列腺癌后,他们接受了TRUS、MRI和TRUS引导下的12核活检。采用交叉表比较组织病理学结果、TRUS和MRI结果,计算敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(Positive Predictive Value, PPV)和阴性预测值(Negative Predictive Value, NPV)。结果:共纳入43例男性患者,平均年龄64.8岁。TRUS检测恶性肿瘤的敏感性、特异性、PPV和NPV分别为69.70、80、92和44.44,MRI检测恶性肿瘤的PPV和NPV分别为87.88%、70%、90.63%和63.64%。此外,MRI发现3例淋巴结病变,4例骨骼转移。结论:MRI能准确显示异常区域,改善TRUS无法发现异常区域导致的假阴性活检。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
121
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信