Cosciani Cunico S, Da Pozzo G P, Giongo A, Frego E, Zambolin T
Cattedra di urologia-Universitá di Brescia, Divisione di urologia spedali civili, Italie.
J Urol (Paris). 1989;95(3):149-51.
We studied 151 patients aged from 49 to 85 years (mean 71) with a clinical suspect of prostatic cancer. 104 underwent a transrectal digitally directed prostatic biopsy, while 47 an ultrasonically perineal guided prostatic biopsy. Transrectal fine needle aspiration was performed in the whole group. Both techniques showed a high cyto-histologic concordance: 83.6% with transrectal digitally directed biopsy, 78.7% with perineal ultrasonically guided biopsy. The ultrasound guided biopsy has been able to downset the rate of cytologic false negatives in comparison to the digitally guided biopsy. In case of pathological rectal examination, digitally directed prostatic biopsy is still available and those who haven't an ultrasound apparatus, can equally perform a traditional biopsy with a limited possibility of mistake.
我们研究了151例年龄在49至85岁(平均71岁)之间临床怀疑患有前列腺癌的患者。104例患者接受了经直肠数字引导前列腺活检,47例接受了超声引导会阴前列腺活检。全组均进行了经直肠细针穿刺抽吸。两种技术均显示出较高的细胞组织学一致性:经直肠数字引导活检为83.6%,会阴超声引导活检为78.7%。与数字引导活检相比,超声引导活检能够降低细胞学假阴性率。在直肠检查异常的情况下,数字引导前列腺活检仍然可行,而那些没有超声设备的人也可以同样进行传统活检,误诊可能性有限。