<strong>Background:</strong> Worldwide, prostatic adenocarcinoma is the most common tumour type among men. <strong>Aim:</strong> The aim of the present investigation was to develop a computer p...<strong>Background:</strong> Worldwide, prostatic adenocarcinoma is the most common tumour type among men. <strong>Aim:</strong> The aim of the present investigation was to develop a computer program to identify normal prostate biopsies and distinguish them from biopsies showing premalignant alterations (LGPIN, HGPIN) and adenocarcinoma. <strong>Method:</strong> Prostate biopsies (n = 2094) taken from 191 consecutive men during 2016 were stained with triple immunehistochemisty (antibodies to AMACRA, p63 and CK 5). Digital images of the biopsies were obtained with a scanning microscope and used to develop an automatic computer program (CelldaTM), intended to identify the morphological alterations. Visual microscopic finding was used as a reference. <strong>Result:</strong> Of the 191 men, 121 (63.4%) were diagnosed as having prostate adenocarcinoma and 70 (36.6%) as having no malignancy on the basis of the visual microscopy. In comparison, computer analysis identified 134 (70.2%) men with malignant disease and 57 (29.8%) with non-malignant disease after exclusion of artifacts, which constituted 10.4% of areas (indicated as malignant disease). Discrepant results were recorded in 15 (7.9%) men, and in 14 of these cases, HGPIN and areas suggestive of early invasion were common. Thus, it was uncertain whether these cases should be regarded as malignant or not. The agreement between the visual examination and the computer analysis was 92.1% (kappa value 0.823, sensitivity 99.2 and specificity was 0.80). <strong>Conclusion:</strong> It seems that computer analysis could serve as an adjunct to simplify and shorten the diagnostic procedure, first of all by ensuring that normal prostate biopsies are sorted out from those sent for visual microscopic evaluation.展开更多
Objective:To explore the combined application of multiple markers for diagnosis of prostate cancer.Methods:To choose the hospital in September, 2015 to September 2012, initially determined both by serum PSA test for p...Objective:To explore the combined application of multiple markers for diagnosis of prostate cancer.Methods:To choose the hospital in September, 2015 to September 2012, initially determined both by serum PSA test for prostate cancer patients 117 cases, for patients with confirmed will be divided into three groups (39 cases further examination, compared with the pathological diagnosis of three groups of patients with prostate cancer diagnosis accuracy. Results: The detection rate in group A patients compared with the pathological diagnosis coincidence rate was 77.2%, B group was 90.3%, and 98.2% of group C, A, B two groups were lower in group C, group A and group B was higher than that that P504s inspection diagnosis rate is higher than about, CK34 beta E12 at 11:45, joint detection and diagnosis rate is highest. Three groups of patients were compared with difference had statistical significance . A group of 13 cases of benign specimen, 10 cases were negative, false positive in 3, coincidence rate was 76.9%, B group of 12 cases of benign specimens, the negative in 11 cases, false positives in 1 case, the coincidence rate is 91.7%, group C of 11 cases of benign specimens, negative in 11 cases, false positive 0 cases, coincidence rate was 100%. Combined detection of false positive diagnosis rate was lower than that in group A, B two patients, three groups of patients were compared with difference had statistical significance. Group A in 26 cases of prostate cancer, positive 22 cases, 4 cases were missed diagnosis coincidence rate was 84.6%. Group B in 27 cases of prostate cancer, positive 25 cases, 2 cases of misdiagnosis, the coincidence rate is 92.6%, group C in 27 cases of prostate cancer, 26 patients, positive, 1 case of misdiagnosis, the coincidence rate was 96.3%. Three groups of patients were compared with difference had statistical significance.Conclusion: Combination of P504s (AMACR), basal cell specific markers (about and CK34 beta E12 at 11:45) detection diagnosis can improve the early diagnostic rate of p展开更多
文摘<strong>Background:</strong> Worldwide, prostatic adenocarcinoma is the most common tumour type among men. <strong>Aim:</strong> The aim of the present investigation was to develop a computer program to identify normal prostate biopsies and distinguish them from biopsies showing premalignant alterations (LGPIN, HGPIN) and adenocarcinoma. <strong>Method:</strong> Prostate biopsies (n = 2094) taken from 191 consecutive men during 2016 were stained with triple immunehistochemisty (antibodies to AMACRA, p63 and CK 5). Digital images of the biopsies were obtained with a scanning microscope and used to develop an automatic computer program (CelldaTM), intended to identify the morphological alterations. Visual microscopic finding was used as a reference. <strong>Result:</strong> Of the 191 men, 121 (63.4%) were diagnosed as having prostate adenocarcinoma and 70 (36.6%) as having no malignancy on the basis of the visual microscopy. In comparison, computer analysis identified 134 (70.2%) men with malignant disease and 57 (29.8%) with non-malignant disease after exclusion of artifacts, which constituted 10.4% of areas (indicated as malignant disease). Discrepant results were recorded in 15 (7.9%) men, and in 14 of these cases, HGPIN and areas suggestive of early invasion were common. Thus, it was uncertain whether these cases should be regarded as malignant or not. The agreement between the visual examination and the computer analysis was 92.1% (kappa value 0.823, sensitivity 99.2 and specificity was 0.80). <strong>Conclusion:</strong> It seems that computer analysis could serve as an adjunct to simplify and shorten the diagnostic procedure, first of all by ensuring that normal prostate biopsies are sorted out from those sent for visual microscopic evaluation.
文摘Objective:To explore the combined application of multiple markers for diagnosis of prostate cancer.Methods:To choose the hospital in September, 2015 to September 2012, initially determined both by serum PSA test for prostate cancer patients 117 cases, for patients with confirmed will be divided into three groups (39 cases further examination, compared with the pathological diagnosis of three groups of patients with prostate cancer diagnosis accuracy. Results: The detection rate in group A patients compared with the pathological diagnosis coincidence rate was 77.2%, B group was 90.3%, and 98.2% of group C, A, B two groups were lower in group C, group A and group B was higher than that that P504s inspection diagnosis rate is higher than about, CK34 beta E12 at 11:45, joint detection and diagnosis rate is highest. Three groups of patients were compared with difference had statistical significance . A group of 13 cases of benign specimen, 10 cases were negative, false positive in 3, coincidence rate was 76.9%, B group of 12 cases of benign specimens, the negative in 11 cases, false positives in 1 case, the coincidence rate is 91.7%, group C of 11 cases of benign specimens, negative in 11 cases, false positive 0 cases, coincidence rate was 100%. Combined detection of false positive diagnosis rate was lower than that in group A, B two patients, three groups of patients were compared with difference had statistical significance. Group A in 26 cases of prostate cancer, positive 22 cases, 4 cases were missed diagnosis coincidence rate was 84.6%. Group B in 27 cases of prostate cancer, positive 25 cases, 2 cases of misdiagnosis, the coincidence rate is 92.6%, group C in 27 cases of prostate cancer, 26 patients, positive, 1 case of misdiagnosis, the coincidence rate was 96.3%. Three groups of patients were compared with difference had statistical significance.Conclusion: Combination of P504s (AMACR), basal cell specific markers (about and CK34 beta E12 at 11:45) detection diagnosis can improve the early diagnostic rate of p
