| Title |
Quantitation of hypoechoic lesions for the prediction and Gleason grading of prostate cancer: a prospective study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Urology, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00345-018-2224-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kwang Suk Lee, Kyo Chul Koo, Byung Ha Chung |
| Abstract |
Hypoechoic lesions are not included as indicators for prostate biopsy. To discriminate the features of hypoechoic lesions, we investigated the ultrasonographic characteristics of hypoechoic lesions using numerical analysis in image. In addition, we evaluated previously suggested subjective parameters on hypoechoic lesion. We performed one-core targeted biopsy (TBx) for each hypoechoic lesion in up to two lesions in each patient before the 12-core systemic biopsy was obtained between July 2015 and May 2016. Image analysis data were analyzed using grayscale values and Hounsfield units (HU) to measure heterogeneity. Subjective evaluation of hypoechoic lesions including hypoechoicity, irregularity, vascularity, and microcalcification was also validated. Of 157 patients (median age = 67.1 years, median prostate-specific antigen = 6.21 ng/mL) included in the study, 77 (49.0%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa), and 39 (17.0%) diagnoses were confirmed by the results of targeted cores. The existence of hypoechoic lesions was not a final predictor for PCa detection. In multivariate analysis using a combination of clinical and quantitative image analyses, the grayscale value was identified as a significant predictive factor for the presence of PCa and high-grade disease (Gleason score ≥ 7) on target lesions. The combination of clinical and image variables had the highest area under the curve (0.890) for detecting PCa in TBx. The proposed method for the quantitation of hypoechoic lesions using grayscale images and HU is simple. Combined with the current clinical approaches, quantitative scoring of lesions can be useful for detecting PCa and making more precise diagnoses. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | 13% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 13% |
| Spain | 1 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Germany | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 7 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 29% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 29% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 29% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 14% |
| Engineering | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 April 2018.
All research outputs
#5,746,690
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Urology
#586
of 2,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,728
of 332,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Urology
#24
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,117 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,024 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.