Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Zuverlässigkeit der Malignitätsmerkmale bei der transrektalen Sonographie

  • Conference paper
Screening des Prostatakarzinoms

  • 18 Accesses

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.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
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. Watanabe H, Kaiho H, Tanaka M, Terasawa Y (1971) Diagnostic application of ultrasonography to the prostate. Invest Urol 8:548–559

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Holm HH, Gammelgaard J (1981) Ultrasonically guided precise needle placement in the prostate and the seminal vesicles. J Urol 125:385–387

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Brooman PJC, Griffiths GJ, Roberts E, Peeling WB, Evans K (1981) Per rectal ultrasound in the investigation of prostatic disease. Clin Rad 32:669–671

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Resnick MI, Willard JW, Boyce WH (1980) Transrectal ultrasonography in the evaluation of patients with prostatic carcinoma. J Urol 124:482

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Watanabe H, Date S, Ohe H, Saitoh M, Tanaka S (1980) A survey of 3000 examinations by transrectal ultrasonography. Prostate 1:271

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Frentzel-Beyme B, Schwarz J, Aurich B (1982) Das Bild des Prostataadenoms und -karzinoms bei der transrektalen Sonographie. RÖFO, 137:261

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee F, Gray JM, MacLeary RD (1985) Transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: location, echogenecity, histopathology and staging. Prostate 7:117–129

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee F, Gray JM, MacLeary RD et al. (1986) Prostatic evaluation by transrectal sonography: criteria for diagnosis of early carninoma. Radiology 158:91–95

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 139:758–761

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hodge KK, MacNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA (1989) Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 142:71–75

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 141:1091–1094

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Salo JO, Rannikko S, Mäkinen J, Lehtonen T (1987) Echogenic structure of prostatic cancer imaged on radical prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 10:1–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Shinohara K, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT (1989) The appearance of prostate cancer on transrectal ultrasonography: correlation of imaging and pathological examinations. J Urol 142:76–82

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 142:1008–1010

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Terris MK, Freiha FS, MacNeal JE, Stamey TA (1991) Efficacy of transrectal ultrasound for identification of clinically undetected prostate cancer. J Urol 146:78–84

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 139:61–65

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wijksta IH (1992) Anatomic picture analysis of TRUS

    Google Scholar 

  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 145:86–92

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 37:193–197

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee F, Littrup PJ, Torp-Pedersen ST et al. (1988) Prostate cancer: comparison of transrectal US and digital rectal examination for screening. Radiology 168:389–394

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Coffield KS, Speights VO, Brawn PN, Riggs MW (1992) Ultrasound detection of prostate cancer in postmortem specimens with histological correlation. J Urol 147:822–826

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 146:1308–1312

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lippman HR, Ghiatas AA, Sarosdy MF (1992) Systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy after negative digitally directed prostate biopsy. J Urol 147:827–829

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 170:29–32

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Jewett HJ (1956) Significance of the palpable prostatic nodule. JAMA 838–839

    Google Scholar 

  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. Mostofi FK, Price EB (1973) Tumors of the male genital system. Atlas of tumor pathology. Sec Ser Fasc 8. AFIP Washington

    Google Scholar 

  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 143:1146–1154

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 143:316–319

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Mettlin C (1988) National Prostate Cancer Detection Program. Presented at the Third International Symposium on Transrectal Chicago, 23. September

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lee F, Torp-Pedersen ST, MacLeary RD (1989) Diagnosis of prostate cancer by transrectal ultrasound. Urol Clin North Am 16 [4]: 663–674

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Galen RS, Gambino SR (1975) Beyond normality: the predictive value and efficiency of medical diagnoses. John Wiley & Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  33. Roush GC, Holford TR, Schymura MJ, White C (1987) Cancer risk and incidence trends. The Connecticut perspective. Hemisphere, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  34. Chodak GW (1989) Screening for prostate cancer: role of ultrasonography. Urol Clin North Am 16 [4]: 657–662

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Stamey TA (1992) Diagnosis of prostate cancer: a personal view. J Urol 147:830–832

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. M. Devonec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Urologische Abteilung, Klinikum Memmingen, Bismarckstraße 23, D-87700, Memmingen, Deutschland

    Peter Faul

  2. Urologische Abteilung, Krankenhaus der Barmherzigen Brüder, Romanstraße 93, D-80639, München, Deutschland

    Jens E. Altwein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1995 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Devonec, M. (1995). Zuverlässigkeit der Malignitätsmerkmale bei der transrektalen Sonographie. In: Faul, P., Altwein, J.E. (eds) Screening des Prostatakarzinoms. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-78318-0_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-78318-0_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-78319-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-78318-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation