Skip to main content

Zusammenfassung

Die Diagnostik des Prostatakarzinoms stützt sich auf 3 Untersuchungsparameter: die digitale rektale Untersuchung (DRU), den transrektalen Ultraschall (TRUS) und die Bestimmung des prostataspezifischen Antigens (PSA) im Serum.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Breul J et al. (1991) Fehler bei der präoperativen Bestimmung des lokalen Tumorstadiums bei der radikalen Prostatektomie. In: Hartung, Hübner, Kropp (eds) Urologische Beckenchirurgie. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokio.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Chybrowski F et al. (1991) Predicting radionuclid bone scan findings in patients with newly diagnosed, untreated prostate cancer: Prostate specific antigen is superior to all other clinical parameters. J Urol 145:313.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cooper EH, Purves D (1994) Bone alkaline phosphatase and prostate specific antigen in the monitoring of prostate cancer. Prostate 25: 236–242.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cowan RJ YK (1973) Evaluation of serum alkaline phophatase dermination in patients with positive bone scans. Cancer 32: 887–889.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. DE/Editorial (1992) New biomarkers of bone resorption. J Clin Endocrin Met 74: 470A–470C.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Desoize BAS et al. (1991) Phosphatase isoenzymes as bone metastasis markers in prostatic carcinoma. Clin Biochem 24: 443–446.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Devonec M et al. (1990) The significance of the prostatic hypoechoic area: results in 226 ultrasonically guided prostatic biopsies. J Urol 143: 316–319.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Epstein J et al. (1993) Correlation of pathologic findings with progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer 71: 3586.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Katz A et al. (1994) Molecular staging of prostate cancer with the use of an enhanced reverse transcriptase-PCR assay. Urology 43: 765–775.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kleer E, Oesterlin JE (1993) PSA and staging of localized prostate cancer. Urol Clin North Am 20: 695–705.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kramer S et al. (1980) Experience with Gleason’s histopathologic grading in prostatic cancer. J Urol 124: 223.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lowe F, Brendler CB (1992) Evaluation of the urological patient. In: Walsh P et al. (eds) CambelPs urology, 6th edn. Saunders, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Merrick MV et al. (1985) Prognostic significance of alkaline and acid phosphatase and skeletal scintigraphy in carcinoma of the prostate. Br J Urol 57: 715–720.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Oeffelein M et al. (1996) Molecular detection of prostate epithelial cells from the surgical field and peripheral circulation during radical prostatectomy. J Urol 155: 238–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Oesterling J et al. (1993) The use of prostate-specific antigen in staging patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. JAMA 269: 57.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Oyen R et al. (1994) Prostata, Samenblasen und Samenwege. In: Lüning M, Felix, R (Hrsg) Komplexe bildgebende Diagnostik — Becken. Thieme, Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Partin A et al. (1990) Prostate specific antigen in the staging of localized prostate cancer: Influence of tumor differentiation, tumor volume and benign hyperplasia. J Urol 143: 747.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rovik J et al. (1994) zzzz. Br J Urol 73: 65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Schröder F et al. (1992) Prostate cancer — local staging with endorectal surface coil MR imaging. Radiology 178: 797–802.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Schröder F et al. (1992) The TNM classifcation of prostate cancer. Prostate S4:129–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Spigelman et al. (1986) Rectal examination in volume determination of carcinoma of the prostate: clinical and anatomical correlations. J Urol 136:1228–1230.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Weingärtner K et al. (1996) Anatomical basis for pelvic lamphadenectomy in prostate cancer: results of an autopsy study and implications for the clinic. J Urol 156:1969–1971.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Whitemore W et al. (1988) Organ systems program staging classification for prostate cancer. In: Coffey D, Resnick, MI, Dorr, FA Karr, JP (eds) A multidisciplinary analysis of controversies in the management of prostate cancer. Plenum Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wood D et al. (1994) Identification of bone marrow micrometastases in patients with prostate cancer. Cancer 74: 2533–2540.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Breul, J., Paul, R. (1999). Stagingprobleme beim Prostatakarzinom aus urologischer Sicht. In: Prostatakarzinom — urologische und strahlentherapeutische Aspekte. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-60064-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-60064-7_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-64241-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-60064-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics