经腹腔与经腹膜外入路腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术疗效分析

目的比较经腹腔与经腹膜外入路腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术的疗效。方法随机将52例行腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术的前列腺癌患者分为2组,各26例。对照组经腹腔入路,观察组经腹膜外入路。结果 2组均成功完成腹腔镜手术。观察组手术时间及术后尿管留置时间、胃肠功能恢复时间和住院时间均短于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。2组术中出血量及术后并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后随访12个月,2组生化复发率及控尿率差异无统计学意义(P005)。结论经腹腔与经腹膜外腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术治疗前列腺癌,均有满意效果且安全性高。但经腹膜外入路具有手术时间短、术后恢复快等优点。但学习曲线时间较长,对医生的临床经验及腹腔镜手术操作技巧要求较高。     

ELRP与开放术治疗前列腺癌的效果对比及血清PSMA、FPSAR的差异性表达

目的 探讨经腹膜外入路前列腺根治性切除术(ELRP)与开放术治疗前列腺癌的效果对比及血清前列腺特异性膜抗原（PSMA）、游离前列腺特异抗原百分率（FPSAR）的差异性表达。方法 回顾性分析2016年1月至2021年1月本院收治的62例前列腺癌患者的临床资料，按术式的不同分为研究组（36例，行ELRP术）和对照组（26例，行传统开放手术）。比较两组患者的围手术期情况，包括手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、术后通气时间、尿管拔除时间。对比分析两组患者的术后并发症发生率。采用国际前列腺癌生活质量评分标准对两组患者的生活质量进行评估。记录两组患者术后１年的尿失禁发生率。采用酶联免疫吸附测定（ELISA）法检测患者PSMA水平，采用化学发光分析法测定总前列腺特异抗原（tPSA）、游离前列腺特异抗原（fPSA）水平，计算FPSAR（fPSA/tPSA）。结果 研究组的手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、术后通气时间、尿管拔除时间均短于对照组（均P<0.001）；研究组的术后并发症发生率低于对照组[11.11%（4/36）vs.34.62%（9/26），P<0.05]；研究组术后1个月、术后6个月的生活质量评分高于对照组（P<0.05），且两组术后1个月、术后6个月的生活质量评分均高于术前（均P<0.05）；研究组的术后１年尿失禁发生率为2.78%（1/36），低于对照组的11.54%（3/26）（P<0.05）；两组术后1周的血清PSMA低于术前，血清FPSAR水平高于术前（均P<0.05），但两组术后1周的血清PSMA、FPSAR水平比较，差异均无统计学意义（均P>0.05）。结论 与开放术比较，ELRP术可改善围手术期情况，降低术后并发症发生率和尿失禁发生率，提高患者的生活质量，并且对术后患者的血清PSMA、FPSAR水平产生影响。     

经腹和经腹膜后肾周脂肪外平面入路肾上腺切除术的比较

目的探讨肾周脂肪外平面入路肾上腺切除术的手术技巧及临床效果。 方法回顾分析2018年1月至2018年12月中山大学附属第三医院及南方科技大学医院双中心多治疗组经治的肾上腺肿瘤切除患者136例。其中经腹腔肾周脂肪外平面入路97例,经腹膜后平面入路39例,比较患者术中及术后情况。 结果136例均手术成功,经腹腔肾周脂肪外平面入路的平均手术时间（47±13）min,术中平均出血量（32±9）ml;经后腹腔肾周脂肪外途径平均手术时间（66±19）min,术中平均出血量（35±11）ml。3例中转开放,术中输血1例,术后高血压危象1例。经腹组在手术时间、出血量控制控制等方面优于后腹腔组。在较大直径的肾上腺肿瘤及肥胖患者人群中经腹组也具有优势。手术并发症及术后恢复方面两组间差异无统计学意义。 结论经腹和经腹膜后的肾周脂肪外层面入路行腹腔镜肾上腺切除术均可达到安全、满意的疗效。     

猪主动脉腔内隔绝术经腹腔入路与腹膜外入路的效果比较

目的:比较经腹腔入路与腹膜外入路在解剖猪腹主动脉作为胸主动脉血管腔内隔绝术导入动脉的效果.方法:12头实验猪随机分为腹腔组和腹膜外组,每组6头,分别经腹腔入路和腹膜外入路两种方法解剖腹主动脉,并在胸主动脉腔内植入移植物.结果:两种入路均可暴露腹主动脉.腹腔组1头因肠缺血死亡,1头损伤膀胱;腹膜外组2头损伤腹膜.平均手术时间腹膜外组为(20.3±2.1)min,腹腔组为(26.2±7.6)min.术后排便时间腹膜外组为(18.8±12.4)h,腹腔组为(39.8±11.6)h.术后第3个月腹膜外组体质量为(44.4±2.4)kg,腹腔组为(39.4±1.7)kg.结论:经腹膜外入路解剖猪腹主动脉行血管腔内隔绝术手术时间更短,消化道功能恢复早,术后体质量增加明显,比经腹腔入路更为安全、有效.     

经腹腔与腹膜后腹腔镜肾癌根治术疗效比较

目的比较经腹腔与经腹膜后入路腹腔镜肾癌根治术的临床效果。方法分析2010年4月至2012年2月间在北京大学第一医院接受腹腔镜肾癌根治术的141例患者资料,其中经腹腔入路组61例、经腹膜后腔入路组80例,比较两种手术入路患者在手术时间、出血量、术后住院日等方面的差异。结果所有141例手术均在腹腔镜下完成。对于经腹腔入路组和经腹膜后腔组,平均手术时间分别为192.1及147.2min（P=0.000）;平均术后住院日分别为5.8d及7.2d（P=0.000）;平均肿瘤长径分别为5.6cm及4.3cm（P=0.001）。在术中出血量、并发症及输血情况等方面无显著性差异。结论经腹腹腔镜和经后腹膜腹腔镜肾癌根治术围手术期均有良好效果,经腹腔入路适合治疗体积较大的肿瘤,术后恢复快,而经腹膜后腔入路具有手术时间短的优势。     

比较两种保留神经的腹膜外腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术的疗效

目的比较筋膜间和筋膜内保留神经的腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术的治疗效果。方法选取开封市中心医院泌尿外科收治的前列腺癌患者86例,均接受保留神经的腹膜外腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术。随机分成2组,每组43例。对照组经筋膜间施术,观察组经筋膜内施术,比较2组的手术指标,术后6、12个月的勃起功能恢复情况及控尿功能。结果 2组手术时间、术中出血量、Gleason评分、尿管留置时间、术后住院时间及切缘阳性率比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后6个月,观察组患者控尿功能显著优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。术后12个月,2组患者控尿功能差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后6、12个月,观察组患者总体勃起功能恢复率明显高于对照组,其中2组≤65岁患者差异有统计学意义(P0.05),但2组65岁患者差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论筋膜内和筋膜间保留神经的腹膜外腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术的临床疗效相当,但筋膜内术式对术后勃起功能和控尿功能的恢复效果较好,尤其是年轻患者。     

经腹腔与经腹膜后入路腹腔镜下肾上腺巨大肿瘤手术的疗效分析

目的:比较经腹腔与经腹膜后入路腹腔镜下肾上腺巨大肿瘤手术的不同特点,探讨腹腔镜下肾上腺巨大肿瘤手术的入路选择。方法:回顾分析2012年7月~2014月11月施行的13例腹腔镜肾上腺手术经验,其中经腹腔入路7例,经腹膜后入路6例。对肿瘤直径,手术时间,术中出血量,术后平均下床时间,肠道功能恢复时间及术后平均住院日,术中、术后并发症等指标进行比较。结果:肿瘤平均直径、平均手术时间、术中平均出血量两组差异无统计学意义(P0.05),术后平均下床时间、肠功能平均恢复时间、术后平均住院时间差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。术中经腹腔途径组1例发生损伤下腔静脉中转开放手术。13例患者均获随访,随访1~25个月,平均12.2个月,均未出现术后并发症。结论:两种不同的入路施行腹腔镜肾上腺巨大肿瘤手术都是安全可行的,两种手术入路各有优缺点,经腹膜后入路在术后恢复方面优于经腹腔入路。     

腹腔镜前列腺癌根治性切除术

Schuessler等于1992年报道了第1例腹腔镜前列腺癌根治性切除术(LRP),1997年他再次报道了9例经腹腔途径LRP,同年Raboy报道了第1例腹膜外途径LRP ,此后至今十余年的时间内,从最初的经腹腔途径,到尝试经腹膜外途径,其技术不断改进 .主要在于提高对肿瘤的治疗效果,保留术后控尿和性功能,提高生活质量,尽量减少并发症、缩短手术时间.目前国外已有多篇1000例以上的LRP报道 ,近期亦有多位作者通过对LRP术后进行随访,结果表明在肿瘤的治疗效果、术后控尿和性功能的保留方面,LRP与开放手术相似,进一步肯定了LRP治疗局限性前列腺癌的价值 .     

经腹与经腹膜外途径腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术疗效比较的Meta分析

目的评价经腹膜外途径与经腹腔途径腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术治疗局限性前列腺癌的安全性和临床疗效。方法计算机检索Cochrane library、Pubmed、EMBASE、OVID、中国生物医学文献光盘数据库、中国期刊全文数据库、重庆维普数据库,搜集公开发表关于经腹膜外途径和经腹腔途径腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术临床疗效与安全性相比较的对照试验。采用Rev Man5.0软件进行统计分析。结果最后纳入12篇文献,受试患者共1329例,Meta分析结果显示:(1)经腹膜外途径组与经腹腔途径组相比较手术时间平均缩短21.75 min(WMD=-21.75,P0.05)、进食时间平均缩短0.80 d(WMD=-0.80,P0.05);(2)估计出血量(WMD=-18.89,P0.05)、住院时间(WMD=-0.90,P0.05)、术后切缘阳性率(OR=1.17,P0.05)、术后漏尿(OR=1.37,P0.05)、术后控尿率(OR=1.33,P0.05)及术后吻合口狭窄(OR=1.97,P0.05)两组差异无统计学意义。结论腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术经腹膜外途径与经腹腔途径相比较具有手术时间短、对腹腔器官影响小、术后胃肠道功能恢复快等优点。     

腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术经膀胱前入路与膀胱后入路疗效比较

目的 探讨腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术(LRP)经膀胱前入路与膀胱后入路的优缺点.方法 回顾分析59例LRP围手术期资料和术后肿瘤学及排尿功能情况.患者平均年龄66岁.均经穿刺活检诊断为前列腺癌,TNM分期为T1c～T3b,Gleason评分3～8.分为膀胱后入路组25例,膀胱前入路组34例.2组患者年龄、体质量指数、PSA值、Gleason评分差异无统计学意义.统计学分析比较2组患者术前、术中和术后临床参数和并发症发生率、术后肿瘤学和排尿状况. 结果 59例手术均获成功.后入路和前入路2组患者术中平均出血量分别为(642.0±552.7)和(637.1±370.8)ml、并发症发生率分别为4.0%和2.9%、切缘阳性率分别为24.0%和20.6%.2组患者术后3个月控尿率分别为72%和88%、6个月控尿率分别为88%和91%,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05).前入路组平均前列腺切除时间(174.2±58.0)min,后入路组(224.85±66.7)min,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01).前入路组术后平均恢复时间(5.9 d)与后入路组(7.5 d)比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05). 结论 LRP经膀胱前入路较膀胱后入路前列腺切除时间和术后恢复时间短,具有临床应用优势.     

Comparison of the clinical validity of free prostate-specific antigen, alpha-1 antichymotrypsin-bound prostate-specific antigen and complexed prostate-specific antigen in prostate cancer diagnosis

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic utility of free prostate specific antigen (fPSA), alpha-1- antichymotrypsin-bound PSA (PSA-ACT), complexed PSA (cPSA), and including their associated ratios to total PSA (tPSA) in serum for discrimination between prostate cancer (PCa) and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: A total of 166 white men (age: 65-88 years) with a tPSA between 2 and 20 microg/l were retrospectively analysed. Serum concentrations of tPSA, fPSA, PSA-ACT and cPSA were measured in 118 untreated PCa patients and 48 patients with BPH. The tPSA and cPSA concentrations were measured with the Bayer Immuno 1 system (Bayer Diagnostics, Tarrytown, USA). The Elecsys system 2010 (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) was used for determination of tPSA and fPSA. The PSA-ACT assay is a newly, developed prototype assay on the ES system (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany). RESULTS: For statistical analysis only patients with tPSA between 2 and 20 microg/l were enrolled. The median concentrations of tPSA (Bayer: PCa 7.36 microg/l, BPH 4.03 microg/l; Roche: PCa 7.75, BPH 4.13), PSA-ACT (PCa 6.98, BPH 3.18) and cPSA (PCa 6.46, BPH 3.20) were significantly different. The median ratios of fPSA/tPSA (PCa 12.8 vs. BPH 22.4%), PSA-ACT/tPSA (PCa 89.8 vs. BPH 76.1%) and cPSA/tPSA (PCa 90.5 vs. BPH 81.7%) were significantly different between PCa and BPH patients. Using the areas under the curves, receiver operating characteristics analysis (tPSA: 2-20 microg/l) for discrimination between PCa and BPH showed that the ratios fPSA/tPSA (area under the curve: 0.77), PSA-ACT/tPSA (0.72) and cPSA/tPSA (0.78) were significantly different from tPSA (Bayer: 0.53; Roche: 0.55). PSA-ACT (0.64) and cPSA (0.59) alone were not significantly different from tPSA. The calculated ratios fPSA/tPSA, PSA-ACT/tPSA and cPSA/tPSA were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: The determination of PSA-ACT or cPSA and the associated ratios do not improve the diagnostic impact to discriminate between PCa and BPH compared to fPSA/tPSA ratio. The ratios PSA-ACT/tPSA or cPSA/tPSA can be considered to be alternative tools of fPSA/tPSA.     

Clinical value of human glandular kallikrein 2 and free and total prostate-specific antigen in serum from a population of men with prostate-specific antigen levels 3.0 ng/mL or greater

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical value of human glandular kallikrein 2 (hK2) compared with free (f) and total (t) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in the early detection of prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: In PCa screening conducted in 1995 to 1996 in G?teborg, Sweden, 5853 of 9811 randomly selected men (aged 50 to 66 years; median 61) accepted PSA testing; those with tPSA levels of 3. 0 ng/mL or greater were offered digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasound, and sextant biopsies. Serum from 604 of 611 biopsied men (18% with positive digital rectal examinations, tPSA range 3.0 to 220 ng/mL, 144 men with PCa) was analyzed for hK2 (research assay) and tPSA and fPSA (Prostatus). Sera were stored at -20 degrees C for a maximum of 2 weeks for tPSA and fPSA and 3 years for hK2. RESULTS: hK2 levels and hK2 x tPSA/fPSA values were significantly elevated in men with PCa. Receiver operating characteristic data revealed that the area under the curve for hK2 x tPSA/fPSA was significantly greater than that for tPSA and greater, but not significantly greater, than that for percent fPSA. Also, the cancer-detecting sensitivity was significantly improved (P <0.05) using hK2 x tPSA/fPSA compared with tPSA and percent fPSA at specificity levels of 75% to 90%. At 75% specificity, a sensitivity of 74% was obtained compared with 64% or 54% using percent fPSA or tPSA; at 90% specificity, the corresponding sensitivity level was 55%, 41%, and 36%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Discrimination of men with and without PCa in a randomly selected population was improved by measuring hK2 in addition to tPSA and fPSA.     

单纯前列腺上皮内瘤回顾性分析(附142例病例分析)

目的通过对前列腺上皮内瘤(PIN)临床资料分析,探讨PIN的生物特性及应对策略。方法对31例无前列腺癌PIN(NPCaPIN)改变患者(其中1级23例,2、3级8例)的临床资料(包括患者血清PSA、fPSA/tPSA、PSA密度等区域计数资料以及穿刺标本免疫组织化学染色结果)进行回顾性分析,以同期确诊为前列腺癌(PCa)、良性前列腺增生(BPH)患者资料作为对照,分析低级别PIN(LGPIN)和高级别PIN(HGPIN)改变之间及NPCaPIN临床特征与PCa、BPH患者临床特征的差异。结果LGPIN和HGPIN改变的患者之间血清PSA水平和年龄存在差异(P<0.05);LGPIN和PCa患者之间血清PSA水平、前列腺体积、fPSA存在显著差异(P<0.01),PSA密度、fPSA/tPSA比值存在差异(P<0.05),和BPH患者之间各项均无明显差异;HGPIN改变和PCa患者之间前列腺体积、fPSA水平和年龄存在差异(P<0.05),和BPH患者之间血清PSA水平差异显著(P<0.01),fPSA/tPSA比值和年龄(P<0.05)存在差异;NPCaPIN和PCa患者之间血清前列腺体积、fPSA水平和年龄、血清PSA水平、PSA密度存在显著差异(P<0.01),和BPH患者之间fPSA/tPSA比值(P<0.05)存在差异。P63、AE1、AE3、P504S、PSA免疫组织化学结果NPCaPIN组类似于BPH而完全异于PCa。结论LGPIN的临床和病理特征与BPH相似,而HGPIN的临床和病理方面具有一定的前列腺恶性肿瘤特征,需要积极的临床追踪观察。     

A multicenter clinical trial on the use of alpha1-antichymotrypsin-prostate-specific antigen in prostate cancer diagnosis

BACKGROUND: The aim was to evaluate the clinical performance of alpha(1)-antichymotrypsin prostate-specific antigen (PSA-ACT) for early diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) in a multicenter trial. METHODS: Three hundred sixty-seven white men with PCa and 290 with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with tPSA concentrations between 2 and 20 microg/L were analyzed. The Elecsys system 2010 (Roche Diagnostics, Germany) was used for determination of total PSA (tPSA) and free PSA (fPSA). The PSA-ACT test was a prototype assay used on the ES system (Roche Diagnostics). RESULTS: The median concentrations of tPSA (PCa: 8.43 microg/L vs. BPH: 6.60 microg/L) and PSA-ACT (8.30 microg/L vs. 6.46 microg/L) were significantly different, respectively. The median ratios of fPSA/tPSA (PCa: 12% vs. BPH: 16%) and PSA-ACT/tPSA (98% vs. 95%) were significantly different. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis for discrimination between PCa and BPH (tPSA between 2 and 20 microg/L) was performed with 252 matched pairs and showed that the area under the curve (AUC) of the ratio fPSA/tPSA (0.66) was significantly different from tPSA (0.50) and PSA-ACT (0.52). PSA-ACT alone or the ratio PSA-ACT/tPSA (0.56) were not significantly different from tPSA. For tPSA between 4 and 10 microg/L (n = 145 pairs), the AUC of the ratio fPSA/tPSA (0.65) was significantly higher than tPSA (0.50) and PSA-ACT (0.54). Significant differences between tPSA and PSA-ACT or PSA-ACT/tPSA (0.56) were not found. CONCLUSIONS: The determination of PSA-ACT as well as the PSA-ACT/tPSA ratio did not improve the diagnostic impact in patients undergoing evaluation for PCa compared to fPSA/tPSA ratio.     

Determination of alpha1-antichymotrypsin-PSA complex in serum does not improve the differentiation between benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate cancer compared with total PSA and percent free PSA

Objectives. To evaluate the analytical performance and diagnostic utility of alpha₁-antichymotrypsin (ACT)-prostate-specific antigen (PSA) complex in serum to improve the differentiation between benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and prostate cancer (PCa).Methods. Serum concentrations of total PSA (tPSA), free PSA (fPSA), and ACT-PSA were measured in 112 untreated patients with PCa (median age 65 years), 34 patients with BPH (median age 66 years) with histologic confirmation, and 33 men without prostate disease and with a normal digital rectal examination considered as controls (median age 54 years). Sera were frozen at −80°C within 2 hours after collection and then analyzed during a 12-week period. Determinations were made with the Enzymun-Test for tPSA and fPSA and with a prototype assay for ACT-PSA on the ES system (Roche Diagnostics, Boehringer Mannheim).Results. The new ACT-PSA assay showed reliable data of analytical performance. The lower detection limit amounted to 0.068 μg/L. The assay was linear to 50 μg/L. Spiking experiments showed a mean recovery rate of 98.2%. No interferences of the assay were observed in patients with acute inflammation and highly increased ACT concentrations. The values of intra- and interassay imprecision ranged from 1.51% to 3.48% and 2.1% to 6.3%, respectively. The median value of ACT-PSA concentrations were significantly different (P <0.001) between controls and patients with BPH and PCa (0.40, 3.86, 5.26 μg/L, respectively). The median fPSA/tPSA and fPSA/ACT-PSA ratios were significantly different between BPH and PCa (24.3% versus 12.2%, P <0.001 and 32.9% versus 15.0%, P <0.001, respectively), but no difference of the ACT-PSA/tPSA ratio was observed (78.2% versus 78.7%, P = 0.696). Receiver operating characteristics of ACT-PSA (area under the CURVE = 0.630) and all the derivative ratios of fPSA/ACT-PSA (area = 0.737) and ACT-PSA/tPSA (area = 0.528) were not different from that of tPSA (area = 0.619), but showed a lower discrimination power between BPH and PCa than the fPSA/tPSA ratio (area = 0.790).Conclusions. Using this prototype assay to quantify ACT-PSA in serum, we have demonstrated that ACT-PSA and the calculated derivatives are not superior in the differentiation between BPH and PCa compared with tPSA and the ratio of fPSA to tPSA.     

Total thiol can contribute to differentiating prostate cancer from BPH: Prostate Thiol Index as a new player

To assess the distinctiveness of serum native thiol (NT), total thiol (TT) and disulfide (SS) levels in PCa patients, we created a new parameter, prostate thiol index (PTI) [tPSA (TTxPVxAge) ^−1/2]. We determined the performance of the PTI on PCa diagnosis. A total of 107 male patients (PCa:65; BPH:42) who were separated according to their Gleason scores, ISUP grades and EAU risk groups and 20 healthy subjects were included. The performances of the tests were determined. The PCa and BPH groups had lower NT and TT levels and higher SS levels than the control group. PCa patients had higher PTI, tPSA, fPSA, PSAD levels, lower fPSA%, PV and PSA-AV levels than BPH patients. TT, PTI, tPSA, fPSA, fPSA%, PSA-AV, PSAD and PV had significant diagnostic performances. PTI had the highest AUC value and accuracy, PSA-AV had the highest specificity, and fPSA had the lowest sensitivity. The performance of the PTI was the best in distinguishing PCa from BPH. PTI, tPSA and PSAD positively and PSA-AV negatively correlated with ISUP grades and EAU groups. TT can contribute to the discrimination of PCa from BPH and PTI may decrease unnecessary biopsies in clinical practice.     

Total and Gleason Grade 4/5 Cancer Volumes are Major Contributors of Human Kallikrein 2, Whereas Free Prostate Specific Antigen is Largely Contributed by Benign Gland Volume in Serum From Patients With Prostate Cancer or Benign Prostatic Biopsies

PurposeWe measured concentrations of human glandular kallikrein 2 (hK2), total prostate specific antigen (tPSA), free PSA (fPSA) and percent fPSA to evaluate their relationship to total prostate gland volume, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) volume, total prostate cancer (PCa) volume (CaVol) and the volume of Gleason grades 4/5 cancer (CaVolGl4) in the serum of 256 patients with PCa undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy and 185 with negative systematic sextant biopsies.Materials and MethodsFree and total PSA was measured using the Delfia Prostatus (Perkin-Elmer, Turku, Finland) total/free PSA assay and hK2 was measured using a research immunofluorometric assay. Transrectal ultrasound was used to determine total prostate and BPH volume. Total CaVol and CaVolGl4/5 were calculated using a volumetric program in specimens from 158 men with pT2a/b and 98 with pT3a or greater PCa. The Pearson correlation was performed after logarithmic conversion of PSA and hK2 levels. Benign gland, and pT2a/b and pT3a or greater PCa cases were subdivided into small vs large prostate gland volumes (42 cc or less vs greater than 42 cc).ResultsTotal prostate and BPH volumes correlated closely with free PSA (r = 0.64 to 0.65, p <0.0001) in 143 patients with negative biopsy and a prostate of greater than 42 cc. Correlations of hK2 and tPSA with total prostate and BPH volumes were weaker (r = 0.35 to 0.36 and 0.45 to 0.46, respectively). In pT2a/b and pT3a or greater PCa cases hK2 most closely correlated with CaVol (range 0.31 to 0.62, p = 0.0072 and <0.0001) and with CaVolGl4/5 (range 0.26 to 0.56, p = 0.021 and <0.0001, respectively). The tPSA level correlated significantly with CaVol and CaVolGl4/5 except in glands 42 cc or greater harboring pT2a/b PCa (p = 0.08). Free PSA correlated significantly with CaVolGl4/5 only in pT3a or greater PCa (p <0.05), and with CaVol in pT3a or greater PCa and in small prostates harboring pT2a/b PCa.ConclusionsLarge benign prostate gland volume affects fPSA more than tPSA in serum. In PCa hK2 more closely correlates with total cancer volume and high grade PCa volume compared with tPSA or fPSA.     

血清前列腺特异性抗原预测中国男性前列腺增生患者前列腺体积的准确性研究

目的通过比较血清总前列腺特异性抗原（tPSA）、游离前列腺特异性抗原（fPSA）与年龄预测前列腺体积（PV）大小的准确性,寻找预测PV简便易行、较准确的预测因子。 方法收集2005年1月至2014年12月因下尿路症状到我院诊治下尿路症状/良性前列腺梗阻（LUTS/BPO）患者的年龄、PV及PSA检测值;采用SPSS 13.0软件处理数据,用皮尔森线性相关关系描述年龄、血清tPSA及血清fPSA与PV的相关性,并采用卡方检验及受试者特征曲线（ROC）分析比较血清tPSA、血清fPSA预测PV的准确性。 结果入选6 308例男性,皮尔森线性相关分析显示年龄-PV、tPSA-PV和fPSA-PV的相关系数分别是0.197、0.434、和0.446,其P值均<0.05,具有相关性;在tPSA为0~4 μg/L时,tPSA和fPSA预测PV在（30~50）ml、（50~70）ml和PV>70 ml组的AUC-ROC分别为（0.617、0.732、0.761）和（0.625、0.738、0.767）;在tPSA为0~4 μg/L时,tPSA和fPSA预测PV在（30~50）ml、（50~70）ml和PV>70 ml组的最佳临界值分别为tPSA（1.3 μg/L、1.6 μg/L、2.0 μg/L）和fPSA（0.3 μg/L、0.4 μg/L、0.5 μg/L）。 结论中国LUTS/BPO男性血清fPSA与PV正相关程度最高,血清tPSA与fPSA均可作为独立预测因子预测中国LUTS/BPO男性的PV,可作为临床上预测PV简便易行的指标,其中fPSA预测的准确性更高。