Browsing by Author "Bozlu, M"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Can We Predict the Surgical Margin Positivity in Patients Treated with Radical Prostatectomy? A Multicenter Cohort of Turkish Association of Uro-Oncology
    Bolat, D; Eskicorapci, S; Karabulut, E; Baltaci, S; Yildirim, A; Sözen, S; Ates, F; Sekerci, ÇA; Kurtulus, F; Dirim, A; Muezzioglu, T; Can, C; Bozlu, M; Gemalmaz, H; Ekici, S; Özen, H; Turkeri, L
    Objective To analyze the parameters that predict the surgical margin positivity after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods In this multicenter study, the data of 1607 consecutive patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer in 12 different clinics in Turkey between 1993-2011 were assessed. Patients who had neoadjuvant treatment were excluded. We assessed the relationship between potential predictive factors and surgical margin status after radical prostatectomy such as age, cancer characteristics, history of transurethral prostate resection, surgical experience and nerve-sparing technique by using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses and t test. Results The overall surgical margin positivity rate was 22.6% (359 patients). In univariate analyses, preoperative prostate specific antigen level, clinical stage, biopsy Gleason score, percentage of tumor involvement per biopsy specimen, transurethral prostate resection history, surgical experience and nerve-sparing technique were significantly associated with positive surgical margin rate. In multivariate analyses, preoperative prostate specific antigen level (OR: 1.03, p=0.06), percentage of tumor involvement per biopsy specimen (OR: 7,14, p<0,001), surgical experience (OR: 2.35, p=0.011) and unilateral nerve-sparing technique (OR: 1.81, p=0.018) were independent predictive factors for surgical margin positivity. Conclusion Preoperative prostate specific antigen level, percentage of tumor involvement per biopsy specimen, surgical experience and nerve-sparing technique are the most important predictive factors of surgical margin positivity in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    A SURVEY OF PATIENT PREPARATION AND TECHNIQUE OF ULTRASOUND-GUIDED PROSTATE BIOPSY: A MULTICENTER STUDY OF UROONCOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
    Bozlu, M; Akduman, B; Mungan, U; Özen, H; Baltaci, S; Türkeri, L; Kirkali, Z; Akdas, A; Adsan, O; Akdogan, B; Altinel, M; Ataus, S; Ayan, S; Bilen, CY; Çal, Ç; Cal, C; Dündar, M; Iseri, C; Kosan, M; Lekili, M; Müezzinoglu, T; Özer, G; Ozgok, Y; Perk, H; Soyupak, B; Soyupek, S; Soylu, A; Sözen, S; Sengör, F; Tansug, Z; Tekin, A; Yildirim, A
    Introduction: Ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy is the standard method for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. The aim of the present survey is to assess the variability in patient preparation and technique of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy among Turkish Urologists. Materials and Methods: In July 2004, a questionnaire was sent out to e-mail addresses of the members of Urooncological Association, asking about the details of prostate biopsy protocol of the members. The survey consisted of multiple choice questions about the patient preparation and prostate biopsy technique. Responses were acquired via e-mail and analyzed in detail. Results: Thirty two urologists from 24 centers responded. The biopsy procedure was performed by the urologist only in 54.16% of the centers, both urologist and radiologist in 37.5%, and radiologist only in 8.33%. Transrectal route was the most common method for ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. A half of the responders performed biopsy when PSA was greater than 4 ng/ml. All of the centers administered antibiotic and a half of them used enema before the procedure. Approximately 37% of responders did not administer any type of analgesia, but 29.1% of all responders administered a periprostatic nerve block for reducing pain during the procedure. Most urologists obtained 10 or 12 biopsy cores and only 20.8% of them obtained routine transitional zone biopsy during the initial biopsy session. Conclusion: This survey demonstrated that patient preparation and technique of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy is not standardized among Turkish Urologists, and a guideline on prostate biopsy is needed.