Оценка риска рака предстательной железы с использованием различных калькуляторов
РАЗНОЕ
Дата публикации: декабря 9, 2014
Ключевые слова
рак предстательной железы
калькуляторы расчета риска
калькуляторы расчета риска
Как цитировать
[1]
Е. Дарий, Т. Гарманова, и Д. Бедретдинова, Оценка риска рака предстательной железы с использованием различных калькуляторов, КМКВ, вып. 1, сс. 185-188, дек. 2014.
Аннотация
В исследовании оценена информативность применения калькуляторов European Randomized study of Screening forProstate Cancer (ERSPC) и Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) для уточнения степени риска рака предстательной железы(РПЖ) и определения показаний к биопсии предстательной железы. Ретроспективно анализировались данные обследо-вания 109 пациентов в возрасте от 37 до 79 лет (средний возраст 62±7,8 года), у которых был выявлен повышенныйуровень простатического специфического антигена (ПСА) и которым проводилось первое скрининговое обследование длявыявления РПЖ в период с 1992 по 2008 г. У всех пациентов наряду с определением уровня ПСА проводилось пальцевоеректальное исследование и трансректальное УЗИ, а также биопсия простаты с гистологическим исследованием. Доказанавысокая информативность использования обоих калькуляторов для прогнозирования вероятности наличия РПЖ.Ключевые слова: рак предстательной железы, калькуляторы расчета риска.The preset study had the aim to assess informativity level of calculators - European Randomized study of Screening for ProstateCancer (ERSPC) and Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) - for determining risk factors of prostatic cancer (PC) and indicationsfor prostatic gland biopsy. Research findings taken from 109 patients aged 37-79 (average 62±7.8) who had increased levels ofprostatic specific antigen (PSA) and who had the first screening examination from 1992 till 2008 for revealing prostatic cancer,have been analyzed retrospectively. All patients had digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasound examination in additionto PSA level examination. They also had prostatic glad biopsy with histological analysis. High effectiveness of both calculators forprognosing PC presence has been proven in the study.Кey words: prostatic cancer, calculators for determining risk factors.Литература
1. Roobol M.J., Steyerberg E.W., Kranse R. et al. A riskbased
strategy improves prostate-specific antigen-driven detection
of prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 2010;57:79–85.
2. Shariat S.F., Karakiewicz P.I., Suardi N. et al. Comparison
of nomograms with other methods for predicting outcomes in
prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Clin. Cancer
Res. 2008;14:4400–7.
3. Vickers A., Cronin A., Roobol M. et al. Reducing
unnecessary biopsy during prostate cancer screening using a
fourkallikrein panel: an independent replication. J. Clin. Oncol.
2010;294:66–70.
4. Schroder F., Kattan M.W. The comparability of models for
predicting the risk of a positive prostate biopsy with prostatespecific
antigen alone: a systematic review. Eur. Urol. 2008;54:274–90.
5. Kranse R., Roobol M., Schroder F.H. A graphical device
to represent the outcomes of a logistic regression analysis. Prostate
2008;68:1674–80.
6. Thompson I.M., Ankerst D.P., Chi C. et al. Assessing
prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention
Trial. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:529–34.
7. Dall’Era M.A., Cooperberg M.R., Chan J.M. et al. Active
surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer: review of the current
literature // Cancer. 2008. Vol. 112. P. 1650-1659.
8. Hernandez D.J., Han M., Humphreys E.B. et al. Predicting
the outcome of prostate biopsy: comparison of a novel logistic
regression-based model, the prostate cancer risk alculator, and
prostate-specific antigen level alone. BJU Int. 2009; 103: 609.
9. Parekh D.J., Ankerst D.P., Higgins B.A. et al: External
validation of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator
in a screened population. Urology. 2006; 68: 1152.
10. Schroder F.H., van den Bergh R.C., Wolters T. et al.
Eleven-year outcome of patients with prostate cancers diagnosed
during screening after initial negative sextant biopsies. Eur. Urol.
2010;57:256–66.
11. Presti Jr. J.C., Chang J.J., Bhargava V. et al. The
optimal systematic prostate biopsy scheme should include 8 rather
than 6 biopsies: results of a prospective clinical trial. J. Urol.
2000;163:163–6 (discussion 166-7).
12. Siu W., Dunn R.L., Shah R.B. et al. Use of extended pattern
technique for initial prostate biopsy. J. Urol. 2005;174:505–9.
13. Chun F.K., Briganti A., Graefen M. et al. Development
and external validation of an extended 10-core biopsy nomogram.
Eur. Urol. 2007;52:436–44.
14. de la Taille A., Antiphon P., Salomon L. et al. Prospective
evaluation of a 21-sample needle biopsy procedure designed to
improve the prostate cancer detection rate. Urology. 2003;61:1181–
6.
15. Eskicorapci S.Y., Baydar D.E., Akbal C. et al. An
extended 10-core transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate
biopsy protocol improves the detection of prostate cancer. Eur.
Urol. 2004;45:444–9.
strategy improves prostate-specific antigen-driven detection
of prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 2010;57:79–85.
2. Shariat S.F., Karakiewicz P.I., Suardi N. et al. Comparison
of nomograms with other methods for predicting outcomes in
prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Clin. Cancer
Res. 2008;14:4400–7.
3. Vickers A., Cronin A., Roobol M. et al. Reducing
unnecessary biopsy during prostate cancer screening using a
fourkallikrein panel: an independent replication. J. Clin. Oncol.
2010;294:66–70.
4. Schroder F., Kattan M.W. The comparability of models for
predicting the risk of a positive prostate biopsy with prostatespecific
antigen alone: a systematic review. Eur. Urol. 2008;54:274–90.
5. Kranse R., Roobol M., Schroder F.H. A graphical device
to represent the outcomes of a logistic regression analysis. Prostate
2008;68:1674–80.
6. Thompson I.M., Ankerst D.P., Chi C. et al. Assessing
prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention
Trial. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:529–34.
7. Dall’Era M.A., Cooperberg M.R., Chan J.M. et al. Active
surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer: review of the current
literature // Cancer. 2008. Vol. 112. P. 1650-1659.
8. Hernandez D.J., Han M., Humphreys E.B. et al. Predicting
the outcome of prostate biopsy: comparison of a novel logistic
regression-based model, the prostate cancer risk alculator, and
prostate-specific antigen level alone. BJU Int. 2009; 103: 609.
9. Parekh D.J., Ankerst D.P., Higgins B.A. et al: External
validation of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator
in a screened population. Urology. 2006; 68: 1152.
10. Schroder F.H., van den Bergh R.C., Wolters T. et al.
Eleven-year outcome of patients with prostate cancers diagnosed
during screening after initial negative sextant biopsies. Eur. Urol.
2010;57:256–66.
11. Presti Jr. J.C., Chang J.J., Bhargava V. et al. The
optimal systematic prostate biopsy scheme should include 8 rather
than 6 biopsies: results of a prospective clinical trial. J. Urol.
2000;163:163–6 (discussion 166-7).
12. Siu W., Dunn R.L., Shah R.B. et al. Use of extended pattern
technique for initial prostate biopsy. J. Urol. 2005;174:505–9.
13. Chun F.K., Briganti A., Graefen M. et al. Development
and external validation of an extended 10-core biopsy nomogram.
Eur. Urol. 2007;52:436–44.
14. de la Taille A., Antiphon P., Salomon L. et al. Prospective
evaluation of a 21-sample needle biopsy procedure designed to
improve the prostate cancer detection rate. Urology. 2003;61:1181–
6.
15. Eskicorapci S.Y., Baydar D.E., Akbal C. et al. An
extended 10-core transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate
biopsy protocol improves the detection of prostate cancer. Eur.
Urol. 2004;45:444–9.