Publications by authors named "Evgeniy Bezrukov"

3 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

A systematic review and meta-analysis of Histoscanning™ in prostate cancer diagnostics.

World J Urol 2021 Apr 7. Epub 2021 Apr 7.

Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Bolshaya Pirogovskaya str. 2 bld. 1, Moscow, 119991, Russia.

Context: The value of Histoscanning™ (HS) in prostate cancer (PCa) imaging is much debated, although it has been used in clinical practice for more than 10 years now.

Objective: To summarize the data on HS from various PCa diagnostic perspectives to determine its potential.

Materials And Methods: We performed a systematic search using 2 databases (Medline and Scopus) on the query "Histoscan*". The primary endpoint was HS accuracy. The secondary endpoints were: correlation of lesion volume by HS and histology, ability of HS to predict extracapsular extension or seminal vesicle invasion.

Results: HS improved cancer detection rate "per core", OR = 16.37 (95% CI 13.2; 20.3), p < 0.0001, I = 98% and "per patient", OR = 1.83 (95% CI 1.51; 2.21), p < 0.0001, I = 95%. The pooled accuracy was markedly low: sensitivity - 0.2 (95% CI 0.19-0.21), specificity - 0.12 (0.11-0.13), AUC 0.12. 8 of 10 studiers showed no additional value for HS. The pooled accuracy with histology after RP was relatively better, yet still very low: sensitivity - 0.56 (95% CI 0.5-0.63), specificity - 0.23 (0.18-0.28), AUC 0.4. 9 of 12 studies did not show any benefit of HS.

Conclusion: This meta-analysis does not see the incremental value in comparing prostate Histoscanning with conventional TRUS in prostate cancer screening and targeted biopsy. HS proved to be slightly more accurate in predicting extracapsular extension on RP, but the available data does not allow us to draw any conclusions on its effectiveness in practice. Histoscanning is a modification of ultrasound for prostate cancer visualization. The available data suggest its low accuracy in screening and detecting of prostate cancer.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03684-8DOI Listing
April 2021

A systematic review of irreversible electroporation in localised prostate cancer treatment.

Andrologia 2020 Nov 12;52(10):e13789. Epub 2020 Aug 12.

Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia.

Irreversible electroporation is a treatment option used for focal therapy. In this systematic review, we summarise data on irreversible electroporation outcomes in patients with localised prostate cancer. We performed a literature search in 3 databases and included articles with own data on irreversible electroporation results in patients with localised prostate cancer. Primary outcome was procedure efficacy measured as the absence of cancer in the treatment area on the follow-up biopsy. Secondary outcomes were the absence of prostate cancer recurrence in the treatment area on MRI, out-of-field recurrence, complications and functional outcomes (erectile function and micturition). In-field recurrence rate was 0%-39% and out-field 6.4%-24%. In all studies, PSA level decreased: twice lower than baseline after 4 weeks and by 76% after 2 years. Most of the authors noted sexual and urinary toxicity during the first half year after surgery. However, functional outcomes recovered to baseline after 6 months with mild decrease in sexual function. Complication rates after irreversible electroporation were 0%-1% of Clavien-Dindo III and 5%-20% of Clavien-Dindo I-II. Irreversible electroporation has promise oncological outcomes, rate of post-operative complications and minimal-to-no effects on erectile and urinary function. However, medium and long-term data on cancer-specific and recurrence-free survival are still lacking.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/and.13789DOI Listing
November 2020

Retrospective Assessment of Endoscopic Enucleation of Prostate Complications: A Single-Center Experience of More Than 1400 Patients.

J Endourol 2020 02;34(2):192-197

Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia.

Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) is a safe method of treating benign prostatic hyperplasia, regardless of prostate volume and type of applied energy. To date, however, there has been no study that examines complication rates with respect to the type of applied energy. This study aims to address this problem by providing a retrospective analysis of >1400 patients who have undergone prostate enucleation. We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing EEP between 2013 and 2018 at a single tertiary institution. This analysis included patients who had undergone one of three forms of EEP: holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP), or monopolar enucleation of the prostate (MEP). We compared intraoperative and early postoperative complications, as well as complications at 3 and 6 months follow-up. A total of 1413 patients were included in this study; 36% patients underwent HoLEP, 57.5% had ThuFLEP, and 6.5% MEP. The most frequent complication in the early postoperative period was a mild fever (2.76% of the cases). The morcellation was delayed to a separate stage because of intensive hemorrhaging in 1.4% of the cases. Bladder tamponade was found in 1.1% of the cases. We found no correlation between complication rate and either prostate volume or energy source. Stress urinary incontinence was found in 3.9% of patients at 3 months and in only 1.4% of patients at 6 months after the operation. Urethral stricture at 6 months after the surgery was found in 1.4% of patients, whereas bladder neck sclerosis was found in only 0.9% of these cases. No significant difference was observed between these complication frequencies and any preoperative factors or energy source. All EEP types are safe with equal rates of complications intraoperatively, postoperatively, and at 6 months follow-up.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0630DOI Listing
February 2020
-->