Imaging in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Present Role and Future Perspectives.

Prostate cancer (PCa) remains a major health concern for the male population. Detection and primary diagnosis of PCa are based on digital rectal examination, serum prostate-specific antigen levels, and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided random biopsy. Moreover, the gold standard for detecting PCa, systematic biopsy, lacks sensitivity as well as grading accuracy. This review summarizes recent developments of ultrasonography modalities and functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of PCa. A comparison between the different methods is presented, including their clinical value and usefulness. It is concluded that innovative ultrasound techniques (including ultrasound contrast agents, 3-D and 4-D sonography, elastography and harmonic sonography) promise benefits in comparison to standard TRUS to accurately diagnose PCa. Promising advances have been made in the detection of PCa with multiparametric MRI. The combination of conventional and functional MRI techniques (including diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, and MR spectroscopy) can provide information for differentiating PCa from noncancerous tissue and can be used for MRI-guided biopsies, especially in patients with persistent elevation of serum prostate-specific antigen and previous negative TRUS-guided biopsies. However, functional MRI technique and MRI-guided biopsy remain expensive and complex tools presenting inherent challenges

Meta-analysis of individual-patient data from EVAR-1, DREAM, OVER and ACE trials comparing outcomes of endovascular or open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm over 5 years

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: The erosion of the early mortality advantage of elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm remains without a satisfactory explanation. METHODS: An individual-patient data meta-analysis of four multicentre randomized trials of EVAR versus open repair was conducted to a prespecified analysis plan, reporting on mortality, aneurysm-related mortality and reintervention. RESULTS: The analysis included 2783 patients, with 14 245 person-years of follow-up (median 5.5 years). Early (0-6 months after randomization) mortality was lower in the EVAR groups (46 of 1393 versus 73 of 1390 deaths; pooled hazard ratio 0.61, 95 per cent c.i. 0.42 to 0.89; P = 0.010), primarily because 30-day operative mortality was lower in the EVAR groups (16 deaths versus 40 for open repair; pooled odds ratio 0.40, 95 per cent c.i. 0.22 to 0.74). Later (within 3 years) the survival curves converged, remaining converged to 8 years. Beyond 3 years, aneurysm-related mortality was significantly higher in the EVAR groups (19 deaths versus 3 for open repair; pooled hazard ratio 5.16, 1.49 to 17.89; P = 0.010). Patients with moderate renal dysfunction or previous coronary artery disease had no early survival advantage under EVAR. Those with peripheral artery disease had lower mortality under open repair (39 deaths versus 62 for EVAR; P = 0.022) in the period from 6 months to 4 years after randomization. CONCLUSION: The early survival advantage in the EVAR group, and its subsequent erosion, were confirmed. Over 5 years, patients of marginal fitness had no early survival advantage from EVAR compared with open repair. Aneurysm-related mortality and patients with low ankle : brachial pressure index contributed to the erosion of the early survival advantage for the EVAR group. Trial registration numbers: EVAR-1, ISRCTN55703451; DREAM (Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management), NCT00421330; ACE (Anevrysme de l'aorte abdominale, Chirurgie versus Endoprothese), NCT00224718; OVER (Open Versus Endovascular Repair Trial for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms), NCT00094575