Zuverlässigkeit der Malignitätsmerkmale bei der transrektalen Sonographie

  • M. Devonec
Conference paper

Zusammenfassung

Die Anwendung der transrektalen Sonographie (TRUS) zur Untersuchung der Prostata wurde zuerst von Watanabe [1] und Holm [2] propagiert. Mit dem gleichzeitigen Erscheinen von zwei wichtigen Verbesserungen im Jahre 1986 stieg das Interesse an der TRUS beträchtlich an. Die erste Verbesserung war technischer Art: Der 7-MHz-Hochfrequenz-Schallkopf bewirkte eine viel bessere Auflösung des Schallbildes. Die zweite Verbesserung betraf die Biopsie-Technik: Die automatische Biopsie verbesserte die Technik der Materialgewinnung und führte zu einer geringeren Schmerzempfindung beim Patienten und damit besseren Akzeptanz dieser Untersuchung.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. l.
    Watanabe H, Kaiho H, Tanaka M, Terasawa Y (1971) Diagnostic application of ultrasonography to the prostate. Invest Urol 8:548–559PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holm HH, Gammelgaard J (1981) Ultrasonically guided precise needle placement in the prostate and the seminal vesicles. J Urol 125:385–387PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brooman PJC, Griffiths GJ, Roberts E, Peeling WB, Evans K (1981) Per rectal ultrasound in the investigation of prostatic disease. Clin Rad 32:669–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Resnick MI, Willard JW, Boyce WH (1980) Transrectal ultrasonography in the evaluation of patients with prostatic carcinoma. J Urol 124:482PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Watanabe H, Date S, Ohe H, Saitoh M, Tanaka S (1980) A survey of 3000 examinations by transrectal ultrasonography. Prostate 1:271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frentzel-Beyme B, Schwarz J, Aurich B (1982) Das Bild des Prostataadenoms und -karzinoms bei der transrektalen Sonographie. RÖFO, 137:261PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee F, Gray JM, MacLeary RD (1985) Transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: location, echogenecity, histopathology and staging. Prostate 7:117–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee F, Gray JM, MacLeary RD et al. (1986) Prostatic evaluation by transrectal sonography: criteria for diagnosis of early carninoma. Radiology 158:91–95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cooner WH, Mosley BR, Rutherford CL Jr, Beard JH, Pond HS, Bass RB, Terry WJ (1988) Clinical application of transrectal ultrasonography and prostate specific antigen in the search for prostate cancer. J Urol 139:758–761PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hodge KK, MacNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA (1989) Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 142:71–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kabalin JN, MacNeal JE, Price HM, Freiha FS, Stamey TA (1989) Unsuspected adenocarcinoma of the prostate in patients undergoing cystoprostatectomy for other causes: incidence, histology and morphometric observations. J Urol 141:1091–1094PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Salo JO, Rannikko S, Mäkinen J, Lehtonen T (1987) Echogenic structure of prostatic cancer imaged on radical prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 10:1–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shinohara K, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT (1989) The appearance of prostate cancer on transrectal ultrasonography: correlation of imaging and pathological examinations. J Urol 142:76–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carter HB, Hamper UM, Sheth S, Sanders RC, Epstein JI, Walsh PC (1989) Evaluation of transrectal ultrasound in the early detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 142:1008–1010PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Terris MK, Freiha FS, MacNeal JE, Stamey TA (1991) Efficacy of transrectal ultrasound for identification of clinically undetected prostate cancer. J Urol 146:78–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    MacNeal JE, Price HM, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA (1988) Stage A versus stage B adenocarcinoma of the prostate: morphological comparison and biological significance. J Urol 139:61–65Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wijksta IH (1992) Anatomic picture analysis of TRUSGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Palken M, Cobb OE, Simons CE, Warren BH, Aldape HC (1991) Prostate cancer: comparison of digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasound for screening. J Urol 145:86–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Babaian RJ, Miyoshita H, Evans RB, von Eschenbach AC (1991) Early detection program for prostate cancer: results and identification of high risk patient population. Urology 37:193–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee F, Littrup PJ, Torp-Pedersen ST et al. (1988) Prostate cancer: comparison of transrectal US and digital rectal examination for screening. Radiology 168:389–394PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Coffield KS, Speights VO, Brawn PN, Riggs MW (1992) Ultrasound detection of prostate cancer in postmortem specimens with histological correlation. J Urol 147:822–826PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vallancien G, Prapotnich D, Veillon B, Brisset JM, Andre-Bourgaran J (1991) Systematic prostatic biopsies in 100 men with no suspicion of cancer on digital rectal examination. J Urol 146:1308–1312PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lippman HR, Ghiatas AA, Sarosdy MF (1992) Systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy after negative digitally directed prostate biopsy. J Urol 147:827–829PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee F, Torp-Pedersen ST, Wittrup PJ (1989) Hypoechoïc lesion of the prostate: clinical reliance of tumors size, digital rectal examination and prostate specific-antigen. Radiology 170:29–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jewett HJ (1956) Significance of the palpable prostatic nodule. JAMA 838–839Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brawer M, Nagle RB (1989) Transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsy following negative digitally guided biopsy. J Urol 141:278A (abstract 433)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mostofi FK, Price EB (1973) Tumors of the male genital system. Atlas of tumor pathology. Sec Ser Fasc 8. AFIP WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cooner WH, Mosley BR, Rutherford CL Jr et al. (1990) Prostate cancer detection in a clinical urological practice by ultrasonography, digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen. J Urol 143:1146–1154PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Devonec M, Fendler JP, Monsallier M et al. (1990) The significance of the prostatic hypoechoic area: results in 226 ultrasonically guided prostatic biopsies. J Urol 143:316–319PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mettlin C (1988) National Prostate Cancer Detection Program. Presented at the Third International Symposium on Transrectal Chicago, 23. SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lee F, Torp-Pedersen ST, MacLeary RD (1989) Diagnosis of prostate cancer by transrectal ultrasound. Urol Clin North Am 16 [4]: 663–674PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Galen RS, Gambino SR (1975) Beyond normality: the predictive value and efficiency of medical diagnoses. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Roush GC, Holford TR, Schymura MJ, White C (1987) Cancer risk and incidence trends. The Connecticut perspective. Hemisphere, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chodak GW (1989) Screening for prostate cancer: role of ultrasonography. Urol Clin North Am 16 [4]: 657–662PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stamey TA (1992) Diagnosis of prostate cancer: a personal view. J Urol 147:830–832PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Devonec

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations