切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版) ›› 2021, Vol. 15 ›› Issue (06) : 458 -462. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2021.06.002

临床研究

经会阴前列腺穿刺活检术单中心经验总结(附2 722例患者报告)
瞿旻1, 李沪生1, 王海峰1, 王燕1, 高旭,1   
  1. 1. 200433 上海,第二军医大学附属长海医院泌尿外科
  • 收稿日期:2020-05-03 出版日期:2021-12-01
  • 通信作者: 高旭
  • 基金资助:
    上海市科技青年英才扬帆人才计划(19YF1447000)

Experiences of transperineal prostate biopsy in single center (report of 2 722 patients)

Min Qu1, Husheng Li1, Haifeng Wang1, Yan Wang1, Xu Gao,1   

  1. 1. Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital Affiliated to the Second Military Medical University, Shanghai 200433, China
  • Received:2020-05-03 Published:2021-12-01
  • Corresponding author: Xu Gao
引用本文:

瞿旻, 李沪生, 王海峰, 王燕, 高旭. 经会阴前列腺穿刺活检术单中心经验总结(附2 722例患者报告)[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(06): 458-462.

Min Qu, Husheng Li, Haifeng Wang, Yan Wang, Xu Gao. Experiences of transperineal prostate biopsy in single center (report of 2 722 patients)[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2021, 15(06): 458-462.

目的

回顾性描述我中心经会阴前列腺穿刺术,挖掘影响穿刺阳性率的关键因素,比较单纯系统穿刺及系统联合靶向穿刺的差异。

方法

纳入2017年6月至2019年12月在我中心行经会阴前列腺穿刺术患者,共2 722例。使用t检验和χ2检验比较计量和计数资料,使用Logistic回归模型分析影响穿刺阳性率的关键因素。

结果

收治患者平均年龄为(67±8)岁,BMI(24.3±3.0) kg/m2,中位PSA 11.59 ng/ml。患者中有190例既往接受过穿刺(6.9%,190/2 722)。有933例患者接受了系统联合靶向穿刺术(34.3%,933/2 722)。术后有60例患者发生严重并发症(2.20%,60/2 722)。病理结果提示有1 439例明确诊断前列腺腺泡腺癌,穿刺阳性率52.8%(1 439/2 722)。通过Logistic回归模型分析发现患者年龄>70岁(OR=3.67,2.55~5.30,P<0.01)、PSA>20 ng/ml(OR=35.83,19.02~67.48,P<0.01)以及进行靶向联合系统穿刺(OR=2.89,2.39~3.48,P<0.01)是前列腺癌确诊的关键因素。进一步比较单纯系统穿刺与系统联合靶向穿刺的差异,发现联合靶向组中PSA<20 ng/ml的患者例数显著高于单纯系统组(83.9% vs 65.7%,P<0.01)。联合靶向组患者既往穿刺病史比例更高(12.2% vs 4.2%,P<0.01),且联合靶向组穿刺阳性率更高(64.0% vs 47.1%,P<0.01)。

结论

经会阴前列腺穿刺术安全有效。患者高龄、高PSA水平以及实施靶向穿刺术是前列腺癌确诊的关键因素。多参数磁共振指导的系统联合靶向穿刺可提高穿刺阳性率,尤其在低PSA及重复穿刺的前提下建议进行多参数磁共振指导的靶向穿刺。

Objective

To retrospectively describe the transperineal prostate puncture in our center, explore the key factors affecting the positive rate of puncture, and compare the differences between simple systematic puncture and systematic combined targeted puncture.

Methods

A total of 2 722 patients who underwent transperineal prostate puncture in our center from June 2017 to December 2019 were included. Measurement and enumeration data were compared using t tests and chi-square tests, and logistic regression models were used to analyze the key factors affecting the positive rate of puncture.

Results

The average age was (67±8) years, the average BMI was (24.3±3.0) kg/m2, and the median PSA was 11.59 ng/ml. 190 patients (6.9%, 190/2 722) had a prior puncture. There were 933 patients who underwent systematic and targeted puncture (34.3%, 933/2 722). Postoperative major complications occurred in 60 patients (2.20%, 60/2 722). Pathological results showed that 1 439 cases were definitely diagnosed as prostatic acinar adenocarcinoma, and the positive rate of puncture was 52.8%(1 439/2 722). Logistic regression analysis showed that age >70 years (OR=3.67, 2.55-5.30, P<0.01), PSA >20 ng/ml (OR=35.83, 19.02-67.48, P<0.01) and targeted combined systematic puncture (OR=2.89, 2.39-3.48, P<0.01) were the key factors for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Further comparison of the difference between systematic puncture alone and systematic combined targeted puncture revealed that the number of patients with combined targeted PSA <20 ng/ml was significantly higher than that in the systematic puncture alone group (83.9% vs 65.7%, P<0.01). The proportion of patients with previous puncture history was higher in the combined targeted group (12.2% vs 4.2%, P<0.01). The combined targeting group significantly increased the positive rate of puncture (64.0% vs 47.1%, P<0.01).

Conclusion

Transperineal prostate puncture is safe and effective. Age, high PSA levels, and targeted paracentesis are key factors in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Multi-parameter MR-guided targeted puncture can improve the positive rate of puncture, especially under the premise of low PSA and repeated puncture, multi-parameter MR-guided targeted puncture is recommended..

表1 前列腺癌诊断危险因素的Logistic回归分析
表2 单纯系统穿刺与系统联合靶向穿刺患者基本情况的比较
[1]
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics 2020 [J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2020, 70(1): 7-30.
[2]
顾秀瑛, 郑荣寿, 张思维, 等. 2000-2014年中国肿瘤登记地区前列腺癌发病趋势及年龄变化分析 [J]. 中华预防医学杂志, 2018, 52(6): 586
[3]
Kaufman JJ, Ljung BM, Walther P. et al. Aspiration biopsy of prostate [J]. Urology, 1982, 19(6):587-591.
[4]
Xiang J, Yan H, Li J, et al. Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. World J Surg Oncol, 2019, 17(1): 31
[5]
Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y, et al. Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy[J]. J Urol, 2013, 189(1): S12-S17.
[6]
Ljung BM. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of the prostate gland: technique and review of the literature[J]. Semin Urol, 1985, 3(1): 18-26.
[7]
Lee F. Transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis, staging, guided needle biopsy, and screening for prostate cancer [J]. Prog Clin Biol Res, 1987, 237: 73-109.
[8]
Yagci AB, Ozari N, Aybek Z, et al. The value of diffusion-weighted MRI for prostate cancer detection and localization[J]. Diagn Interv Radiol, 2011, 17(2): 130-134.
[9]
Loy LM, Lim GH, Leow JJ, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound guided fusion biopsy of prostate for cancer detection-Comparing transrectal with transperineal approaches[J]. Urol Oncol, 2020, 38(8): 650-660.
[10]
Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer 2020[J]. Eur Urol, 2021, 79(2): 243-282.
[11]
van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israel B. et al. Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study[J]. Eur Urol, 2019, 75(4): 570-578.
[12]
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study[J]. Lancet, 2017, 389(10071): 815-822.
[13]
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI-Targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis [J]. N Engl J Med, 2018, 378(19): 1767-1777.
[14]
Rouviere O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, et al. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study[J]. Lancet Oncol, 2019, 20(1): 100-109.
[15]
Pilie PG, Johnson AM, Hanson KL, et al. Germline genetic variants in men with prostate cancer and one or more additional cancers [J]. Cancer, 123(20): 3925-3932.
[16]
Bell KJ, Del Mar C, Wright G, et al. Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer: A systematic review of autopsy studies[J]. Int J Cancer, 2015, 137(7): 1749-1757.
[17]
Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter[J]. N Engl J Med, 2004, 350(22): 2239-2246.
[18]
Chen R, Zhou LQ, Cai XB, et al. Percent free prostate-specific antigen is effective to predict prostate biopsy outcome in Chinese men with prostate-specific antigen between 10.1 and 20.0 ng/ml[J]. Asian J Androl, 2015, 17(6): 1017-1021.
[1] 杨倩, 李秋洋, 李楠, 罗渝昆, 唐杰. 基于超声纹理影像转录组学预测前列腺癌[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(03): 319-326.
[2] 祝炜安, 林华慧, 吴建杰, 黄炯煅, 吴婷婷, 赖文杰. RDM1通过CDK4促进前列腺癌细胞进展的研究[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 618-625.
[3] 王功炜, 李书豪, 魏松, 吕博然, 胡成. 溶瘤病毒M1对不同前列腺癌细胞杀伤效果的研究[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 626-632.
[4] 施一辉, 张平新, 朱勇, 杨德林. 机器人辅助前列腺根治术后切缘阳性的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 633-637.
[5] 李伟, 宋子健, 赖衍成, 周睿, 吴涵, 邓龙昕, 陈锐. 人工智能应用于前列腺癌患者预后预测的研究现状及展望[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 541-546.
[6] 吴伟宙, 王琼仁, 詹雄宇, 郑明星, 李亚县. 广东省医学会泌尿外科疑难病例多学科会诊(第16期)——左肾肉瘤样癌[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 525-529.
[7] 李鑫钊, 张廷涛, 朱峰, 刘金山, 刘大闯. 血纤维蛋白原、D-二聚体及碱性磷酸酶诊断前列腺癌骨转移的价值分析[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 459-463.
[8] 杨勇军, 曾一鸣, 贺显雅, 卢强, 李远伟. ASA分级≥Ⅲ级患者局麻经会阴前列腺多模态影像融合穿刺的安全性和有效性[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 441-447.
[9] 胡思平, 熊性宇, 徐航, 杨璐. 衰老相关分泌表型因子在前列腺癌发生发展中的作用机制[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 425-434.
[10] 刘中文, 刘畅, 高洋, 刘东, 林世庆, 杨建华, 赵福义. 尿液microRNA-326与腹腔镜根治性膀胱切除术治疗膀胱癌患者预后的相关性研究[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 386-391.
[11] 张铭星, 刘文倩, 王以然, 赵泽恬, 袁欣怡, 丁留成. 江苏地区腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术后一年夜尿症发生率及相关危险因素多中心回顾性研究[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(02): 141-145.
[12] 杨龙雨禾, 王跃强, 招云亮, 金溪, 卫娜, 杨智明, 张贵福. 人工智能辅助临床决策在泌尿系肿瘤的应用进展[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(02): 178-182.
[13] 陈钊, 钟克力, 江志鹏, 傅宇翔, 范宝航, 吴文飞. 前列腺癌术后腹股沟疝的发生率及危险因素分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 396-401.
[14] 邓屹, 叶苏意, 崔伟, 乐艳青, 陈兢兢, 陈俞溪, 陈泳衡, 许荣德, 李静. 影像引导下经皮肺穿刺活检的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2024, 12(04): 296-302.
[15] 吴瑾文, 王利昭, 周丹, 任红. 肺部经皮穿刺活检术后气胸发生的风险因素及其风险应对方案分析[J/OL]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2024, 12(02): 150-154.
阅读次数
全文
4
HTML PDF
最新录用 在线预览 正式出版 最新录用 在线预览 正式出版
0 0 1 0 0 3

  来源 本网站 其他网站
  次数 3 1
  比例 75% 25%

摘要
96
最新录用 在线预览 正式出版
0 0 96
  来源 本网站 其他网站
  次数 59 37
  比例 61% 39%