Prevalencia del cáncer de próstata en lesiones hipoecoicas de la ecografía transrectal de próstata

Resumen Objetivo: Determinar la prevalencia del cáncer de próstata en las lesiones hipoecoicas evidenciadas durante la toma de las biopsias de próstatas dirigida por ecografía transrectal. Materiales y métodos: El estudio se realizó retrospectivamente analizando datos de 223 pacientes llevados a bio...

Full description

Autores:
Hernández Torres, Sebastián Juan
Páez Alarcón, Marco Antonio
Tipo de recurso:
Trabajo de grado de pregrado
Fecha de publicación:
2020
Institución:
Universidad El Bosque
Repositorio:
Repositorio U. El Bosque
Idioma:
spa
OAI Identifier:
oai:repositorio.unbosque.edu.co:20.500.12495/3654
Acceso en línea:
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12495/3654
Palabra clave:
cáncer, próstata, nódulo hipoecoico, biopsia, transrectal.
cancer, prostate, hypoechoic nodule, biopsy, transrectal.
WJ100
Rights
openAccess
License
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
id UNBOSQUE2_be1646c685b575f31849f7452cabd8f2
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unbosque.edu.co:20.500.12495/3654
network_acronym_str UNBOSQUE2
network_name_str Repositorio U. El Bosque
repository_id_str
dc.title.spa.fl_str_mv Prevalencia del cáncer de próstata en lesiones hipoecoicas de la ecografía transrectal de próstata
dc.title.translated.spa.fl_str_mv Prevalence of prostate cancer in hypoechoic lesions from transrectal prostate ultrasound
title Prevalencia del cáncer de próstata en lesiones hipoecoicas de la ecografía transrectal de próstata
spellingShingle Prevalencia del cáncer de próstata en lesiones hipoecoicas de la ecografía transrectal de próstata
cáncer, próstata, nódulo hipoecoico, biopsia, transrectal.
cancer, prostate, hypoechoic nodule, biopsy, transrectal.
WJ100
title_short Prevalencia del cáncer de próstata en lesiones hipoecoicas de la ecografía transrectal de próstata
title_full Prevalencia del cáncer de próstata en lesiones hipoecoicas de la ecografía transrectal de próstata
title_fullStr Prevalencia del cáncer de próstata en lesiones hipoecoicas de la ecografía transrectal de próstata
title_full_unstemmed Prevalencia del cáncer de próstata en lesiones hipoecoicas de la ecografía transrectal de próstata
title_sort Prevalencia del cáncer de próstata en lesiones hipoecoicas de la ecografía transrectal de próstata
dc.creator.fl_str_mv Hernández Torres, Sebastián Juan
Páez Alarcón, Marco Antonio
dc.contributor.advisor.none.fl_str_mv De La Hoz, José Antonio
dc.contributor.author.none.fl_str_mv Hernández Torres, Sebastián Juan
Páez Alarcón, Marco Antonio
dc.subject.spa.fl_str_mv cáncer, próstata, nódulo hipoecoico, biopsia, transrectal.
topic cáncer, próstata, nódulo hipoecoico, biopsia, transrectal.
cancer, prostate, hypoechoic nodule, biopsy, transrectal.
WJ100
dc.subject.keywords.spa.fl_str_mv cancer, prostate, hypoechoic nodule, biopsy, transrectal.
dc.subject.nlm.spa.fl_str_mv WJ100
description Resumen Objetivo: Determinar la prevalencia del cáncer de próstata en las lesiones hipoecoicas evidenciadas durante la toma de las biopsias de próstatas dirigida por ecografía transrectal. Materiales y métodos: El estudio se realizó retrospectivamente analizando datos de 223 pacientes llevados a biopsia transrectal de próstata. Los hallazgos anatomopatológicos de la biopsia, nivel de antígeno prostático especifico pre biopsia, puntaje Gleason y otras variables clínicas se compararon entre pacientes con cáncer de próstata con lesiones hipoecoicas y sin estas. Resultados: Se observó cáncer de próstata en 67 de los 223 pacientes (30%). La tasa de detección de cáncer fue mayor en pacientes con lesiones hipoecoicas (61.5%) que en aquellos sin lesiones hipoecoicas (20.5%). P = <0.000. El cáncer de próstata se detectó con mayor frecuencia en pacientes con lesiones hipoecoicas multifocales (80%) que en aquellos con lesiones hipoecoicas unifocales (48.6%) (p ＜ 0.001), la zona con mayor afectación como era de esperar fue la zona periférica. Adicionalmente también hubo una mayor detección de cáncer de próstata en pacientes con antígeno específico prostático > 10 ng/ml (41.4%) en comparación con aquellos ≤ 10 ng/ml (18.9%). P= < 0.000. Conclusiones: Los pacientes en los que se observó lesiones hipoecoicas, tenían una mayor prevalencia de cáncer de próstata en comparación con aquellos que presentaban ecografía transrectal normal. Por lo tanto, las lesiones hipoecoicas pueden ser un marcador de cáncer de próstata, así como de enfermedad clínicamente significativa. Palabras claves: cáncer, próstata, nódulo hipoecoico, biopsia, transrectal.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv 2020-08-03T21:32:49Z
dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv 2020-08-03T21:32:49Z
dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv 2020
dc.type.local.spa.fl_str_mv Tesis/Trabajo de grado - Monografía - Especialización
dc.type.coar.none.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_7a1f
dc.type.driver.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis
dc.type.coarversion.none.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
format http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_7a1f
dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12495/3654
dc.identifier.instname.spa.fl_str_mv instname:Universidad El Bosque
dc.identifier.reponame.spa.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositorio Institucional Universidad El Bosque
dc.identifier.repourl.none.fl_str_mv repourl:https://repositorio.unbosque.edu.co
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12495/3654
identifier_str_mv instname:Universidad El Bosque
reponame:Repositorio Institucional Universidad El Bosque
repourl:https://repositorio.unbosque.edu.co
dc.language.iso.none.fl_str_mv spa
language spa
dc.relation.references.spa.fl_str_mv 18. Referencias bibliográficas 1. Mottet N, van den Bergh E, Briers P, Cornford M, De Santis S, Fanti S et al. Oncology Guidelines of Prostate Cancer. EAU Annual Congress. Barcelona: European Association of Urology; 2019. p. 978-94. 2. Bell K, Del Mar C, Wright G, Dickinson J, Glasziou P. Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer: A systematic review of autopsy studies. International Journal of Cancer. 2015;137(7):1749-1757. 3. Jansson K, Akre O, Garmo H, Bill-Axelson A, Adolfsson J, Stattin P et al. Concordance of Tumor Differentiation Among Brothers with Prostate Cancer. European Urology. 2012;62(4):656-661. 4. Smeenge M, Barentsz J, Cosgrove D, de la Rosette J, de Reijke T, Eggener S et al. Role of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a Consensus Panel. BJU International. 2012;110(7):942-948. 5. Klemann N, Røder M, Helgstrand J, Brasso K, Toft B, Vainer B et al. Risk of prostate cancer diagnosis and mortality in men with a benign initial transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy set: a population-based study. The Lancet Oncology. 2017;18(2):221-229. 6. Numao N, Kawakami S, Sakura M, Yoshida S, Koga F, Saito K et al. Characteristics and clinical significance of prostate cancers missed by initial transrectal 12-core biopsy. BJU International. 2011;109(5):665-671. 7. Matiz JLP, Reyes NJA, Becerra MPS, Almendrales FPD. Evolución de la mortalidad por cáncer de próstata en Colombia: estudio ecológico. Urología Colombiana 2014 Apr;23(1):3-10. 8. Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D, Quentin M, Hiester A, Godehardt E et al. Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)-guided In-bore Biopsy to MRI-ultrasound Fusion and Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy in Patients with Prior Negative Biopsies. European Urology. 2015;68(4):713-720. 9. Schröder F, van den Bergh R, Wolters T, van Leeuwen P, Bangma C, van der Kwast T et al. Eleven-Year Outcome of Patients with Prostate Cancers Diagnosed During Screening After Initial Negative Sextant Biopsies. European Urology. 2010;57(2):256-266. 10. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. International Journal of Cancer. 2014;136(5):E359-E386. 11. Dickerman B, Markt S, Koskenvuo M, Pukkala E, Mucci L, Kaprio J. Alcohol intake, drinking patterns, and prostate cancer risk and mortality: a 30-year prospective cohort study of Finnish twins. Cancer Causes & Control. 2016;27(9):1049-1058. 12. Zhao J, Stockwell T, Roemer A, Chikritzhs T. Is alcohol consumption a risk factor for prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta–analysis. BMC Cancer. 2016;16(1). 13. Lopes P, Sepúlveda L, Ramos R, Sousa P. The role of transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: new contributions. Radiologia Brasileira. 2015;48(1):7-11. 14. Ganie F, Wanie M, Ganie S, Lone H, Gani M, Mir M et al. Correlation of transrectal ultrasonographic findings with histo pathology in prostatic cancer. Jornal of Education and Health promotion. 2014;3(38). 15. Zhao H, Xia C, Yin H, Guo N, Zhu Q. The value and limitations of contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasonography for the detection of prostate cancer. European Journal of Radiology. 2013;82(11):e641-e647. 16. Zhao H, Zhu Q, Wang Z. Detection of prostate cancer with three-dimensional transrectal ultrasound: correlation with biopsy results. The British Journal of Radiology. 2012;85(1014):714-719. 17.Loch T. Computergestützter transrektaler Ultraschall (C-TRUS) in der Diagnostik des Prostatakarzinoms. Der Urologe, Ausgabe A. 2004;43(11):1377-1384. 18.Shinohara K, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. The Appearance of Prostate Cancer on Transrectal Ultrasonography: Correlation of Imaging and Pathological Examinations. The Journal of urology. 1989;142(1):76-82. 19.Lojanapiwat B, Anutrakulchai W, Chongruksut W, Udomphot C. Correlation and diagnostic performance of the prostate-specific antigen level with the diagnosis, aggressiveness, and bone metastasis of prostate cancer in clinical practice. Prostate International. 2014;2(3):133-139. 20.Trabulsi E, Halpern E, Gomella L. Prostate Biopsy: Techniques and Imaging. In: Campbell, Walsh, ed. by. Urology. 11th ed. 2020. p. 3490-3505. 21.Babinski M, Chagas M, Costa W, Pereira M. Morfología y fracción del área del lumen glandular de la zona de transición de la próstata humana. 2020.p.255-262. 22.Cancer Facts & Figures 2017 [Internet]. Cancer.org. 2017 [cited 11 July 2020]. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics/all-cancer-facts-figures/cancer-facts-figures-2017.html 23.Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2013;63(1):11-30. 24. EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam 2020. ISBN 978-94-92671-07-3. 25.Adhyam M, Gupta A. A Review on the Clinical Utility of PSA in Cancer Prostate. Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2012;3(2):120-129. 26.Wolf A, Wender R, Etzioni R, Thompson I, D'Amico A, Volk R et al. American Cancer Society Guideline for the Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: Update 2010. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2010;60(2):70-98. 27.Freedland S, Hotaling J, Fitzsimons N, Presti J, Kane C, Terris M et al. PSA in the New Millennium: A Powerful Predictor of Prostate Cancer Prognosis and Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes — Results from the SEARCH Database. European Urology. 2008;53(4):758-766. 28.Walsh A, Considine S, Thomas A, Lynch T, Manecksha R. Digital rectal examination in primary care is important for early detection of prostate cancer: a retrospective cohort analysis study. British Journal of General Practice. 2014;64(629):e783-e787. 29.Issa M, Zasada W, Ward K, Hall J, Petros J, Ritenour C et al. The value of digital rectal examination as a predictor of prostate cancer diagnosis among United States Veterans referred for prostate biopsy. Cancer Detection and Prevention. 2006;30(3):269-275. 30. 14. Herranz Amo F, Díez Cordero J, Cabello Benavente R. Evolución de la técnica de biopsia transrectal ecodirigida de la próstata [Internet]. Scielo.isciii.es. 2020;59(4):385-396. 31.Miller D, Hafez K, Stewart A. Prostate carcinoma presentation, diagnosis and staging. An update from the national cancer database. Cancer. 2003;(98). 32.de la Taille A, Antiphon P, Salomon L, Cherfan M, Porcher R, Hoznek A et al. Prospective evaluation of a 21-sample needle biopsy procedure designed to improve the prostate cancer detection rate. Urology. 2003;61(6):1181-1186. 33.Taneja S, Bjurlin M, Carter B. Optimal Techniques of Prostate Biopsy and Specimen Handling. American Urological Association. 2020. 34. Hodge K, McNeal J, Terris M, Stamey T. Random Systematic Versus Directed Ultrasound Guided Transrectal Core Biopsies of the Prostate. Journal of Urology. 1989;142(1):71-74. 35. Herranz F, Arias F, Arrizabalaga M, Calahorra F, Carballido J, Diz R. El cancer de prostata en la comunidad de Madrid en el año 2000. Actas Urologicas Españolas. 2003;27(5):335-344. 36.Noh T, Shin Y, Shim J, Yoon J, Kim J, Bae J et al. Are Hypoechoic Lesions on Transrectal Ultrasonography a Marker for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer?. Korean Journal of Urology. 2013;54(10):666. 37.Sonn G, Chang E, Natarajan S, Margolis D, Macairan M, Lieu P et al. Value of Targeted Prostate Biopsy Using Magnetic Resonance–Ultrasound Fusion in Men with Prior Negative Biopsy and Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen. European Urology. 2014;65(4):809-815. 38.Vilanova J, Luna A, Boada M, Barcelo J. Resonancia magnética multiparamétrica. Papel de las técnicas de RM en el diagnóstico, estadiage y seguimiento del cáncer de próstata. Arch Esp Urol. 2015;68(3). 39.EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam 2020. ISBN 978-94-92671-07-3 40.Bolaños P, Chacón C. Escala patológica de Gleason para el cáncer de próstata y sus modificaciones. Med leg Costa Rica. 2020;34(1):237-243. 41.Epstein J, Allsbrook W, Amin M, Egevad L. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. The American Journal of Surgical Pathology. 2005;29(9):1228-1242. 42.Epstein J, Egevad L, Amin M, Delahunt B, Srigley J, Humphrey P. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. The American Journal of Surgical Pathology. 2015;:1. 43.Epstein J, Walsh P, Sauvageot J, Ballentine Carter H. Use of repeat sextant and transition zone biopsies for assessing extent of prostate cancer. Journal of Urology. 1997;158(5):1886-1890. 44.McNeal. Zonal distribution of prostatic adenocarcinomas: correlation with histologic pattern and direction of spread. J Clin Pathol. 1988;(12). 45.Stamey, Dietrick,. “Large, organ confined, impalpable transition zone prostate cancer: association with metastatic levels prostate specific antigen”. Urol. 1993;149. 46.Terris M, Pham T, Kabalin J. Routine Transition Zone and Seminal Vesicle Biopsies in All Patients Undergoing Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Prostate Biopsies Are Not Indicated. Journal of Urology. 2020;157(1):204-206. 47. Bazinet M, Karakiewicz P, Aprikian A, Trudel C, Aronson S, Nachabe M. Value of Systematic Transition Zone Biopsies in the Early Detection of Prostate Cancer. Journal of Urology. 2020;155(2):605. 48.Lui P, Terris M, Stamey T. Indications for Ultrasound Guided Transition Zone Biopsies in the Detection of Prostate Cancer. Journal of Urology. 1995;153(3). 49.Gosselaar C, Roobol MJ, Roemeling S, Wolters T, van Leenders GJ, Schroder FH. The value of an additional hypoechoic lesion-directed biopsy core for detecting prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2008;101:685-90. 50.Noh TI, Shin YS, Shim JS, Yoon JH, Kim JH, Bae JH, et al. Are hypoechoic lesions on transrectal ultrasonography a marker for clinically significant prostate cancer? Korean journal of urology. 2013 Oct;54(10):666-670. 51.Onur R, Littrup PJ, Pontes JE, Bianco FJ Jr. Contemporary impact of transrectal ultrasound lesions for prostate cancer detection. J Urol. 2004; 172:512–4. 52.Littrup PJ, Bailey SE. Prostate cancer: the role of transrectal ultrasound and its impact on cancer detection and management. Radiol Clin North. Am 2000;38:87-113. 53.Wegelin O, van Melick HH, Hooft L, Bosch JL, Reitsma HB, Barentsz JO, Somford DM. Comparing Three Different Techniques for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsies: A Systematic Review of In-bore versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound fusion versus Cognitive Registration. Is There a Preferred Technique? Eur Urol. 2016; 71:517–31.
dc.rights.*.fl_str_mv Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
dc.rights.uri.*.fl_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.rights.local.spa.fl_str_mv Acceso abierto
dc.rights.accessrights.none.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.creativecommons.none.fl_str_mv 2020-07-31
rights_invalid_str_mv Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Acceso abierto
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
2020-07-31
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.mimetype.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.coverage.spatial.spa.fl_str_mv Hospital Simon Bolivar
dc.coverage.temporal.spa.fl_str_mv 1-02-2020 - 01-03-2020
dc.publisher.program.spa.fl_str_mv Especialización en Urología
dc.publisher.grantor.spa.fl_str_mv Universidad El Bosque
dc.publisher.faculty.spa.fl_str_mv Facultad de Medicina
institution Universidad El Bosque
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv https://repositorio.unbosque.edu.co/bitstreams/7b5656e8-be67-403e-ae68-ff88d1434b00/download
https://repositorio.unbosque.edu.co/bitstreams/9a5ef048-5d64-485c-9d7d-b40e231e1330/download
https://repositorio.unbosque.edu.co/bitstreams/e7fb6c03-fa46-4c4b-a3fd-b0d7024c9358/download
https://repositorio.unbosque.edu.co/bitstreams/9562b611-9e5b-428f-a6a0-dff5be7cf267/download
https://repositorio.unbosque.edu.co/bitstreams/50be57a1-307a-4477-95eb-4275dd29146e/download
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv 8a4605be74aa9ea9d79846c1fba20a33
4460e5956bc1d1639be9ae6146a50347
4b500b244de943732a5c1f9460ca351b
0a05883ebfde8f2960858bdb39609700
7ce6dfea2affad02eb7a2482b0c7b0d0
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv MD5
MD5
MD5
MD5
MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositorio Institucional Universidad El Bosque
repository.mail.fl_str_mv bibliotecas@biteca.com
_version_ 1814100755622133760
spelling De La Hoz, José AntonioHernández Torres, Sebastián JuanPáez Alarcón, Marco AntonioHospital Simon Bolivar1-02-2020 - 01-03-20202020-08-03T21:32:49Z2020-08-03T21:32:49Z2020http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12495/3654instname:Universidad El Bosquereponame:Repositorio Institucional Universidad El Bosquerepourl:https://repositorio.unbosque.edu.coResumen Objetivo: Determinar la prevalencia del cáncer de próstata en las lesiones hipoecoicas evidenciadas durante la toma de las biopsias de próstatas dirigida por ecografía transrectal. Materiales y métodos: El estudio se realizó retrospectivamente analizando datos de 223 pacientes llevados a biopsia transrectal de próstata. Los hallazgos anatomopatológicos de la biopsia, nivel de antígeno prostático especifico pre biopsia, puntaje Gleason y otras variables clínicas se compararon entre pacientes con cáncer de próstata con lesiones hipoecoicas y sin estas. Resultados: Se observó cáncer de próstata en 67 de los 223 pacientes (30%). La tasa de detección de cáncer fue mayor en pacientes con lesiones hipoecoicas (61.5%) que en aquellos sin lesiones hipoecoicas (20.5%). P = <0.000. El cáncer de próstata se detectó con mayor frecuencia en pacientes con lesiones hipoecoicas multifocales (80%) que en aquellos con lesiones hipoecoicas unifocales (48.6%) (p ＜ 0.001), la zona con mayor afectación como era de esperar fue la zona periférica. Adicionalmente también hubo una mayor detección de cáncer de próstata en pacientes con antígeno específico prostático > 10 ng/ml (41.4%) en comparación con aquellos ≤ 10 ng/ml (18.9%). P= < 0.000. Conclusiones: Los pacientes en los que se observó lesiones hipoecoicas, tenían una mayor prevalencia de cáncer de próstata en comparación con aquellos que presentaban ecografía transrectal normal. Por lo tanto, las lesiones hipoecoicas pueden ser un marcador de cáncer de próstata, así como de enfermedad clínicamente significativa. Palabras claves: cáncer, próstata, nódulo hipoecoico, biopsia, transrectal.Hospital Simon BolivarEspecialista en UrologíaEspecializaciónObjective: to determine the prevalence of prostate cancer in hypoechoic lesions evidenced during the taking of prostate biopsies conducted by transrectal ultrasound. Materials and methods: The study was performed retrospectively analyzing data from 223 patients undergoing a transrectal prostate biopsy. Pathologic findings from biopsy, pre-biopsy prostate-specific antigen level, Gleason score, and other clinical variables were compared between prostate cancer patients with and without hypoechoic lesions. Results: Prostate cancer was suffered in 67 of the 223 patients (30%). The cancer detection rate was higher in patients with hypoechoic lesions (61.5%) than in those without hypoechoic lesions (20.5%). P = <0.000. Prostate cancer is detected more frequently in patients with multifocal hypoechoic lesions (80%) than in those with unifocal hypoechoic lesions (48.6%) (p ＜ 0.001), the area with the greatest involvement as expected was the peripheral area. Furthermore, there was also a higher detection of prostate cancer in patients with prostate specific antigen> 10 ng / ml (41.4%) compared to those ≤ 10 ng / ml (18.9%). P = <0.000. Conclusions: Patients with hypoechoic lesions have a higher prevalence of prostate cancer compared to those with normal transrectal ultrasound. Therefore, hypoechoic lesions can be a marker of prostate cancer, as well as clinically significant disease. Palabras claves: cáncer, próstata, nódulo hipoecoico, biopsia, transrectal. Key words: cancer, prostate, hypoechoic nodule, biopsy, transrectal.application/pdfspaAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internationalhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Acceso abiertohttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2020-07-31cáncer, próstata, nódulo hipoecoico, biopsia, transrectal.cancer, prostate, hypoechoic nodule, biopsy, transrectal.WJ100Prevalencia del cáncer de próstata en lesiones hipoecoicas de la ecografía transrectal de próstataPrevalence of prostate cancer in hypoechoic lesions from transrectal prostate ultrasoundEspecialización en UrologíaUniversidad El BosqueFacultad de MedicinaTesis/Trabajo de grado - Monografía - Especializaciónhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_7a1finfo:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesishttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a8518. Referencias bibliográficas 1. Mottet N, van den Bergh E, Briers P, Cornford M, De Santis S, Fanti S et al. Oncology Guidelines of Prostate Cancer. EAU Annual Congress. Barcelona: European Association of Urology; 2019. p. 978-94. 2. Bell K, Del Mar C, Wright G, Dickinson J, Glasziou P. Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer: A systematic review of autopsy studies. International Journal of Cancer. 2015;137(7):1749-1757. 3. Jansson K, Akre O, Garmo H, Bill-Axelson A, Adolfsson J, Stattin P et al. Concordance of Tumor Differentiation Among Brothers with Prostate Cancer. European Urology. 2012;62(4):656-661. 4. Smeenge M, Barentsz J, Cosgrove D, de la Rosette J, de Reijke T, Eggener S et al. Role of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a Consensus Panel. BJU International. 2012;110(7):942-948. 5. Klemann N, Røder M, Helgstrand J, Brasso K, Toft B, Vainer B et al. Risk of prostate cancer diagnosis and mortality in men with a benign initial transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy set: a population-based study. The Lancet Oncology. 2017;18(2):221-229. 6. Numao N, Kawakami S, Sakura M, Yoshida S, Koga F, Saito K et al. Characteristics and clinical significance of prostate cancers missed by initial transrectal 12-core biopsy. BJU International. 2011;109(5):665-671. 7. Matiz JLP, Reyes NJA, Becerra MPS, Almendrales FPD. Evolución de la mortalidad por cáncer de próstata en Colombia: estudio ecológico. Urología Colombiana 2014 Apr;23(1):3-10. 8. Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D, Quentin M, Hiester A, Godehardt E et al. Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)-guided In-bore Biopsy to MRI-ultrasound Fusion and Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy in Patients with Prior Negative Biopsies. European Urology. 2015;68(4):713-720. 9. Schröder F, van den Bergh R, Wolters T, van Leeuwen P, Bangma C, van der Kwast T et al. Eleven-Year Outcome of Patients with Prostate Cancers Diagnosed During Screening After Initial Negative Sextant Biopsies. European Urology. 2010;57(2):256-266. 10. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. International Journal of Cancer. 2014;136(5):E359-E386. 11. Dickerman B, Markt S, Koskenvuo M, Pukkala E, Mucci L, Kaprio J. Alcohol intake, drinking patterns, and prostate cancer risk and mortality: a 30-year prospective cohort study of Finnish twins. Cancer Causes & Control. 2016;27(9):1049-1058. 12. Zhao J, Stockwell T, Roemer A, Chikritzhs T. Is alcohol consumption a risk factor for prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta–analysis. BMC Cancer. 2016;16(1). 13. Lopes P, Sepúlveda L, Ramos R, Sousa P. The role of transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: new contributions. Radiologia Brasileira. 2015;48(1):7-11. 14. Ganie F, Wanie M, Ganie S, Lone H, Gani M, Mir M et al. Correlation of transrectal ultrasonographic findings with histo pathology in prostatic cancer. Jornal of Education and Health promotion. 2014;3(38). 15. Zhao H, Xia C, Yin H, Guo N, Zhu Q. The value and limitations of contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasonography for the detection of prostate cancer. European Journal of Radiology. 2013;82(11):e641-e647. 16. Zhao H, Zhu Q, Wang Z. Detection of prostate cancer with three-dimensional transrectal ultrasound: correlation with biopsy results. The British Journal of Radiology. 2012;85(1014):714-719. 17.Loch T. Computergestützter transrektaler Ultraschall (C-TRUS) in der Diagnostik des Prostatakarzinoms. Der Urologe, Ausgabe A. 2004;43(11):1377-1384. 18.Shinohara K, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. The Appearance of Prostate Cancer on Transrectal Ultrasonography: Correlation of Imaging and Pathological Examinations. The Journal of urology. 1989;142(1):76-82. 19.Lojanapiwat B, Anutrakulchai W, Chongruksut W, Udomphot C. Correlation and diagnostic performance of the prostate-specific antigen level with the diagnosis, aggressiveness, and bone metastasis of prostate cancer in clinical practice. Prostate International. 2014;2(3):133-139. 20.Trabulsi E, Halpern E, Gomella L. Prostate Biopsy: Techniques and Imaging. In: Campbell, Walsh, ed. by. Urology. 11th ed. 2020. p. 3490-3505. 21.Babinski M, Chagas M, Costa W, Pereira M. Morfología y fracción del área del lumen glandular de la zona de transición de la próstata humana. 2020.p.255-262. 22.Cancer Facts & Figures 2017 [Internet]. Cancer.org. 2017 [cited 11 July 2020]. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics/all-cancer-facts-figures/cancer-facts-figures-2017.html 23.Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2013;63(1):11-30. 24. EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam 2020. ISBN 978-94-92671-07-3. 25.Adhyam M, Gupta A. A Review on the Clinical Utility of PSA in Cancer Prostate. Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2012;3(2):120-129. 26.Wolf A, Wender R, Etzioni R, Thompson I, D'Amico A, Volk R et al. American Cancer Society Guideline for the Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: Update 2010. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2010;60(2):70-98. 27.Freedland S, Hotaling J, Fitzsimons N, Presti J, Kane C, Terris M et al. PSA in the New Millennium: A Powerful Predictor of Prostate Cancer Prognosis and Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes — Results from the SEARCH Database. European Urology. 2008;53(4):758-766. 28.Walsh A, Considine S, Thomas A, Lynch T, Manecksha R. Digital rectal examination in primary care is important for early detection of prostate cancer: a retrospective cohort analysis study. British Journal of General Practice. 2014;64(629):e783-e787. 29.Issa M, Zasada W, Ward K, Hall J, Petros J, Ritenour C et al. The value of digital rectal examination as a predictor of prostate cancer diagnosis among United States Veterans referred for prostate biopsy. Cancer Detection and Prevention. 2006;30(3):269-275. 30. 14. Herranz Amo F, Díez Cordero J, Cabello Benavente R. Evolución de la técnica de biopsia transrectal ecodirigida de la próstata [Internet]. Scielo.isciii.es. 2020;59(4):385-396. 31.Miller D, Hafez K, Stewart A. Prostate carcinoma presentation, diagnosis and staging. An update from the national cancer database. Cancer. 2003;(98). 32.de la Taille A, Antiphon P, Salomon L, Cherfan M, Porcher R, Hoznek A et al. Prospective evaluation of a 21-sample needle biopsy procedure designed to improve the prostate cancer detection rate. Urology. 2003;61(6):1181-1186. 33.Taneja S, Bjurlin M, Carter B. Optimal Techniques of Prostate Biopsy and Specimen Handling. American Urological Association. 2020. 34. Hodge K, McNeal J, Terris M, Stamey T. Random Systematic Versus Directed Ultrasound Guided Transrectal Core Biopsies of the Prostate. Journal of Urology. 1989;142(1):71-74. 35. Herranz F, Arias F, Arrizabalaga M, Calahorra F, Carballido J, Diz R. El cancer de prostata en la comunidad de Madrid en el año 2000. Actas Urologicas Españolas. 2003;27(5):335-344. 36.Noh T, Shin Y, Shim J, Yoon J, Kim J, Bae J et al. Are Hypoechoic Lesions on Transrectal Ultrasonography a Marker for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer?. Korean Journal of Urology. 2013;54(10):666. 37.Sonn G, Chang E, Natarajan S, Margolis D, Macairan M, Lieu P et al. Value of Targeted Prostate Biopsy Using Magnetic Resonance–Ultrasound Fusion in Men with Prior Negative Biopsy and Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen. European Urology. 2014;65(4):809-815. 38.Vilanova J, Luna A, Boada M, Barcelo J. Resonancia magnética multiparamétrica. Papel de las técnicas de RM en el diagnóstico, estadiage y seguimiento del cáncer de próstata. Arch Esp Urol. 2015;68(3). 39.EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam 2020. ISBN 978-94-92671-07-3 40.Bolaños P, Chacón C. Escala patológica de Gleason para el cáncer de próstata y sus modificaciones. Med leg Costa Rica. 2020;34(1):237-243. 41.Epstein J, Allsbrook W, Amin M, Egevad L. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. The American Journal of Surgical Pathology. 2005;29(9):1228-1242. 42.Epstein J, Egevad L, Amin M, Delahunt B, Srigley J, Humphrey P. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. The American Journal of Surgical Pathology. 2015;:1. 43.Epstein J, Walsh P, Sauvageot J, Ballentine Carter H. Use of repeat sextant and transition zone biopsies for assessing extent of prostate cancer. Journal of Urology. 1997;158(5):1886-1890. 44.McNeal. Zonal distribution of prostatic adenocarcinomas: correlation with histologic pattern and direction of spread. J Clin Pathol. 1988;(12). 45.Stamey, Dietrick,. “Large, organ confined, impalpable transition zone prostate cancer: association with metastatic levels prostate specific antigen”. Urol. 1993;149. 46.Terris M, Pham T, Kabalin J. Routine Transition Zone and Seminal Vesicle Biopsies in All Patients Undergoing Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Prostate Biopsies Are Not Indicated. Journal of Urology. 2020;157(1):204-206. 47. Bazinet M, Karakiewicz P, Aprikian A, Trudel C, Aronson S, Nachabe M. Value of Systematic Transition Zone Biopsies in the Early Detection of Prostate Cancer. Journal of Urology. 2020;155(2):605. 48.Lui P, Terris M, Stamey T. Indications for Ultrasound Guided Transition Zone Biopsies in the Detection of Prostate Cancer. Journal of Urology. 1995;153(3). 49.Gosselaar C, Roobol MJ, Roemeling S, Wolters T, van Leenders GJ, Schroder FH. The value of an additional hypoechoic lesion-directed biopsy core for detecting prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2008;101:685-90. 50.Noh TI, Shin YS, Shim JS, Yoon JH, Kim JH, Bae JH, et al. Are hypoechoic lesions on transrectal ultrasonography a marker for clinically significant prostate cancer? Korean journal of urology. 2013 Oct;54(10):666-670. 51.Onur R, Littrup PJ, Pontes JE, Bianco FJ Jr. Contemporary impact of transrectal ultrasound lesions for prostate cancer detection. J Urol. 2004; 172:512–4. 52.Littrup PJ, Bailey SE. Prostate cancer: the role of transrectal ultrasound and its impact on cancer detection and management. Radiol Clin North. Am 2000;38:87-113. 53.Wegelin O, van Melick HH, Hooft L, Bosch JL, Reitsma HB, Barentsz JO, Somford DM. Comparing Three Different Techniques for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsies: A Systematic Review of In-bore versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound fusion versus Cognitive Registration. Is There a Preferred Technique? Eur Urol. 2016; 71:517–31.LICENSElicense.txtlicense.txttext/plain; charset=utf-81748https://repositorio.unbosque.edu.co/bitstreams/7b5656e8-be67-403e-ae68-ff88d1434b00/download8a4605be74aa9ea9d79846c1fba20a33MD53CC-LICENSElicense_rdflicense_rdfapplication/rdf+xml; charset=utf-8805https://repositorio.unbosque.edu.co/bitstreams/9a5ef048-5d64-485c-9d7d-b40e231e1330/download4460e5956bc1d1639be9ae6146a50347MD52THUMBNAILTESIS UROLOGÍA 2020.pdf.jpgTESIS UROLOGÍA 2020.pdf.jpgIM Thumbnailimage/jpeg4693https://repositorio.unbosque.edu.co/bitstreams/e7fb6c03-fa46-4c4b-a3fd-b0d7024c9358/download4b500b244de943732a5c1f9460ca351bMD55ORIGINALTESIS UROLOGÍA 2020.pdfTESIS UROLOGÍA 2020.pdfPrevalencia del cáncer de próstata en lesiones hipoecoicas de la ecografía transrectal de próstataapplication/pdf748086https://repositorio.unbosque.edu.co/bitstreams/9562b611-9e5b-428f-a6a0-dff5be7cf267/download0a05883ebfde8f2960858bdb39609700MD54TEXTTESIS UROLOGÍA 2020.pdf.txtTESIS UROLOGÍA 2020.pdf.txtExtracted texttext/plain86044https://repositorio.unbosque.edu.co/bitstreams/50be57a1-307a-4477-95eb-4275dd29146e/download7ce6dfea2affad02eb7a2482b0c7b0d0MD5620.500.12495/3654oai:repositorio.unbosque.edu.co:20.500.12495/36542024-02-07 03:02:52.165http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internationalopen.accesshttps://repositorio.unbosque.edu.coRepositorio Institucional Universidad El Bosquebibliotecas@biteca.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

Publicaciones similares