Comparison of prostate cancer detection rates between the Vienna nomogram and the 10-core biopsy protocol

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoridArda, Ersan/0000-0002-5430-6561
dc.authorwosidArda, Ersan/L-7357-2016
dc.contributor.authorArda, Ersan
dc.contributor.authorDemir, Zafer
dc.contributor.authorYuksel, Ilkan
dc.contributor.authorCek, Mete
dc.date.accessioned2024-06-12T10:54:40Z
dc.date.available2024-06-12T10:54:40Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.departmentTrakya Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: To compare the Vienna nomogram and the 10-core prostate biopsy protocol regarding whether there is superiority in prostate cancer detection. Methods: Between January and December 2012, a total of 215 patients applying to our outpatient clinic with lower urinary tract symptoms were evaluated, prospectively. Patients with a prostate-specific antigen level of 2.5-10 ng/mL and/or suspicious digital rectal examination were included in the study. Exclusion criteria were determined as recent pelvic radiotherapy, lower urinary tract surgery, history of acute urinary retention, or indwelling urinary catheter. Biopsies were taken systematically with at least 10 cores considering prostate volume and patient age. According to Vienna nomogram, in patients requiring 6- or 8-core biopsies, tissue sampling was completed to 10 cores (our standard protocol), whereas in patients requiring more than 10 cores additional tissue sampling was performed. Results: After the determination of inclusion/exclusion criteria, 170 patients were enrolled in our study. The median (min-max) age, prostate-specific antigen value, and prostate volume were 65 (48-86) years, 7.6 ng/dL (2.5-10), and 55 cc (17-150), respectively. Prostate cancer was detected in 49 (28.8%) patients with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy according to the Vienna nomogram. We found that our standard 10-core biopsy protocol would have diagnosed prostate cancer in 46 (27.1%) patients in the same study group showing no statistically significant difference (p > 0.005). Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that considering cancer detection rates no statistically significant differences were found between both methods. Further prospective research in this aspect is needed to define the ultimate prostate biopsy protocol.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0391560319882224
dc.identifier.endpage159en_US
dc.identifier.issn0391-5603
dc.identifier.issn1724-6075
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.pmid31618113en_US
dc.identifier.startpage155en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1177/0391560319882224
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14551/19141
dc.identifier.volume87en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000491451000001en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityN/Aen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSage Publications Ltden_US
dc.relation.ispartofUrologia Journalen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectBiopsyen_US
dc.subjectCanceren_US
dc.subjectProstateen_US
dc.subjectVienna Nomogramen_US
dc.subjectUltrasounden_US
dc.subjectDiagnosisen_US
dc.subjectCoresen_US
dc.titleComparison of prostate cancer detection rates between the Vienna nomogram and the 10-core biopsy protocolen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu