Measurement of peri‐prostatic fat thickness using transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS): a new risk factor for prostate cancer
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
UNLABELLED: Study Type - Prognosis (cohort) Level of Evidence 2b. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? ADIPOSE tissue secretes various endocrine and paracrine mediators. Some authors have begun to consider whether peri-prostatic fat (PPF) may interact with the prostate and play a role in carcinogenesis. It has recently been shown that the PPF quantity measured by CT is associated with more aggressive disease in patients undergoing radiation therapy. Our group studied a population not yet diagnosed with prostate cancer. By doing so we were able to identify PPF thickness on transrectal ultrasonography as a risk factor for prostate cancer detection upon biopsy, and as a risk factor for high-grade disease. Our study also raises interesting questions about the underlying mechanisms of the association between PPF quantity and prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To determine if the amount of peri-prostatic fat (PPF) on transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) is a risk factor for incident prostate cancer overall and high-grade prostate cancer (Gleason ≥4). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing prostate biopsy at Princess Margaret Hospital for cancer suspicion was used. • All TRUS examinations were retrospectively reviewed upon 'blinding' to outcome. • PPF thickness, measured as the distance between the prostate and the pubic bone, was used as an index of the quantity of PPF. • PPF measurements, together with other prostate cancer risk factors, were evaluated against prostate cancer and high-grade prostate cancer detection upon biopsy with univariable and multivariable logistic regression and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis. RESULTS: Of the 931 patients, 434 (47%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer and 218 (23%) were diagnosed with high-grade prostate cancer. • The mean (range) PPF thickness was 5.3 (0-15) mm. • Increasing PPF thickness was associated with prostate cancer and high-grade prostate cancer diagnosis, with graded effect. When adjusting for other variables, the odds of detecting any prostate cancer and high-grade prostate cancer increased 12% (odds ratio [OR] 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.23) and 20% (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.07-1.34), respectively, for each millimetre increase in PPF thickness. • The AUCs for the association of PPF with prostate cancer and high-grade prostate cancer were 0.58 (95% CI 0.54-0.62) and 0.59 (95% CI 0.55-0.64), respectively. CONCLUSION: The amount of PPF can be estimated with TRUS and is a predictor of prostate cancer and high-grade prostate cancer at biopsy. To our knowledge, this study is the first to investigate PPF quantity in patients without prior prostate cancer diagnosis.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».