Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorEstrada Guerrero, Andreaspa
dc.contributor.advisorQuiroga Matamoros, Williamspa
dc.contributor.authorCastaño Charry, Diana Patriciaspa
dc.contributor.authorSuarez Pinilla, Juan Camilospa
dc.coverage.spatialMedicinaspa
dc.date.accessioned2019-04-24T14:23:42Z
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-30T19:08:55Z
dc.date.available2019-04-24T14:23:42Z
dc.date.available2019-12-30T19:08:55Z
dc.date.issued2019-03-25
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10654/21126
dc.description.abstractEl puntaje de Gleason como herramienta de estadificación histológica en pacientes con cáncer de próstata juega un papel de suma importancia en la determinación de pronóstico y comportamiento de la enfermedad por lo que es factor que debe ser tenido en cuenta al momento de la toma de decisiones en cuanto al tratamiento a realizar. Sin embargo, a pesar de la confiabilidad del puntaje de Gleason con respecto al mismo espécimen, la correlación entre el resultado de la biopsia de próstata y de la pieza quirúrgica obtenida de la prostatectomía radical es variable. Lo que podría impactar en la toma de decisiones terapéuticas y finalmente en la sobrevida del paciente Objetivo: Determinar la concordancia entre el puntaje de Gleason de la biopsia transrectal de próstata con el Gleason de la prostatectomía radical. Materiales y Métodos: Se realizó un estudio de concordancia de pruebas diagnósticas de 90 registros de patología de prostatectomía radical realizadas entre 2014-2018. Todos los pacientes debían tener biopsia de próstata previa a la prostatectomía radical, y ambos procedimientos realizados en el Hospital Militar Central. El índice correlación de Kappa de Cohen se usó para determinar la concordancia entre las variables. Resultados: El índice de concordancia de Kappa de Cohen para el gleason en grupo de riesgo fue de 0.154 y Kappa ponderado fue de 0.379, implicando una concordancia pobre y débil respectivamente entre el resultado anatomopatológico de la biopsia transrectal de próstata con el de la prostatectomía radical.. Conclusiones: En general, la confiabilidad de la puntuación de Gleason de las biopsias con aguja para predecir la patología final fue débil. Sin embargo, no se determinó que esta concordancia sea significativa al momento de tomar decisiones en el manejo del paciente, ya que el grado de sub estadificación y sobre estadificación son comparables con centros de referencia mundial y la decisión terapéutica toma en cuenta esta diferencia y otros factores clínicos que permiten una adecuada elección.spa
dc.description.tableofcontents1. Resumen 5 2. Marco Teórico 6 3. Planteamiento Del Problema Y Justificación 11 3.1. Pregunta De Investigación 12 4. Objetivos 13 4.1. Objetivo General 13 4.2. Objetivos Específicos 13 5. Metodología 14 5.1. Tipo De Estudio 14 5.2. Población Blanco 14 5.3. Población Objeto 14 5.4. Centro De Estudio Ejecutor 14 5.5. Criterios De Inclusión 14 5.6. Criterios De Exclusión 15 5.7. Tamaño De La Muestra 15 5.8. Definición De Las Variables 15 5.9. Procedimientos Para La Recolección De Información, Instrumentos A Utilizar Y Métodos Para El Control De Calidad De Los Datos 16 6. Plan De Análisis 17 7. Cronograma 18 8. Presupuesto 19 9. Aspectos Éticos 20 10. Resultados 21 11. Discusión 25 12. Conclusiones 28 13. Trayectoria De Los Investigadores 29 14. Referencias Bibliográficas 32spa
dc.formatpdfspa
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfspa
dc.language.isospaspa
dc.language.isospaspa
dc.publisherUniversidad Militar Nueva Granadaspa
dc.rightsDerechos Reservados - Universidad Militar Nueva Granada, 2019spa
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/co/spa
dc.titleConcordancia del puntaje de Gleason en biopsia transrectal de próstata y prostatectomía radical en pacientes del Hospital Militar Central.spa
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesisspa
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessspa
dc.publisher.departmentFacultad de Medicinaspa
dc.type.localTrabajo de gradospa
dc.description.abstractenglishThe Gleason score as a histological staging tool in patients with prostate cancer plays an important role on prognosis determination and the disease behavior, which is a factor that must be taken into account at the moment of the taking of decisions regarding the treatment to be performed. However, despite the reliability of Gleason score with respect to the same specimen, the correlation between the result of the prostate biopsy and the surgical specimen of the radical prostatectomy is variable. Objective: Determine the concordance between the Gleason score of the transrectal prostate biopsy and the Gleason score of the radical prostatectomy. Materials and methods: Concordance study. 90 records of radical prostatectomy pathology between 2014-2018 was carried out. All patients had to have a prostate biopsy prior to radical prostatectomy, and both procedures performed at Hospital MIlitar Central. Cohen's Kappa correlation was used to determine the agreement between the variables. Results: Cohen's Kappa concordance index for the gleason score in the risk group was 0.154 and weighted Kappa was 0.379, implying a poor and weak concordance as a result of the anatomopathological result of the transrectal prostate biopsy with radical prostatectomy. Conclusions: In general, the reliability of the cycle score of needle biopsies to predict the final pathology was weak. However, it was not determined that this concordance is significant at the time of making decisions in the management of the patient. upgrading and overgrading degree are comparable with world reference centers and the therapeutic decision takes into account this difference and other clinical factors that allow for an adequate treatment choice.eng
dc.title.translatedGleason score concordance in transrectal prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy in Hospital Militar Central patientsspa
dc.subject.keywordsGleasonspa
dc.subject.keywordsProstatectomyspa
dc.subject.keywordsBiopsyspa
dc.publisher.programUrologíaspa
dc.creator.degreenameEspecialista en Urologíaspa
dc.subject.decsUROLOGIA
dc.subject.decsENFERMEDADES DE LA PROSTATA
dc.subject.decsBIOPSIA
dc.description.degreelevelEspecializaciónspa
dc.publisher.facultyMedicina y Ciencias de la Salud - Urologíaspa
dc.type.dcmi-type-vocabularyTextspa
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersionspa
dc.rights.creativecommonsAtribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadasspa
dc.relation.references1. Saman DM, Lemieux AM, Nawal Lutfiyya M, Lipsky MS. A review of the current epidemiology and treatment options for prostate cancer. Dis Mon. 2014 Apr;60(4):150–4.spa
dc.relation.references2. Miller KD, Siegel RL, Lin CC, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66(4):271-289.spa
dc.relation.references3. Pardo Ramos C, Cendales Duarte R. Incidencia, mortalidad y prevalencia de cáncer en Colombia, 2007-2011. Bogotá: Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social : Instituto Nacional de Cancerología; 2015.spa
dc.relation.references4. Attard G, Parker C, Eeles RA, Schröder F, Tomlins SA, Tannock I, et al. Prostate cancer. The Lancet. 2016 Jan;387(10013):70–82.spa
dc.relation.references5. Popiolek M, Rider JR, Andrén O, Andersson S-O, Holmberg L, Adami H-O, et al. Natural History of Early, Localized Prostate Cancer: A Final Report from Three Decades of Follow-up. Eur Urol. 2013 Mar;63(3):428–35.spa
dc.relation.references6. Andriole, M.D GL, Catalona, M.D WJ. Prostate Carcinoma. Annu Rev Med. 1994;45(1):351-359.spa
dc.relation.references7. Ilic D, Neuberger MM, Djulbegovic M, Dahm P. Screening for prostate cancer. In: The Cochrane Collaboration, editor. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [Internet]. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2013.spa
dc.relation.references8. Washino S, Okochi T, Saito K, et al. Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naïve patients. BJU Int. 2017;119(2):225-233spa
dc.relation.references9. Oesterling JE, Jacobsen SJ, Chute CG, Guess HA, Girman CJ, Panser LA, et al. Serum prostate-specific antigen in a community-based population of healthy men: establishment of age-specific reference ranges. Jama. 1993;270(7):860–4 10. Ismail MT, Gomella LG. Transrectal prostate biopsy. Urol Clin North Am. 2013;40(4):457-472.spa
dc.relation.references10. Ismail MT, Gomella LG. Transrectal prostate biopsy. Urol Clin North Am. 2013;40(4):457-472.spa
dc.relation.references11. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):618–29spa
dc.relation.references12. Chen N, Zhou Q. The evolving Gleason grading system. Chinese J Cancer Res. 2016;28(1):58-64spa
dc.relation.references13. Andriole, M.D GL, Catalona, M.D WJ. Prostate Carcinoma. Annu Rev Med. 1994;45(1):351-359spa
dc.relation.references14. Cam, K., Yucel S., Turkeri, L., Akdas, A. Accuracy of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: histopathological correlation to matched prostatectomy specimens. Int J Urol. 2002;9(5):257-260spa
dc.relation.references15. Pereira R, Costa R, Muglia V, et al. Gleason score and tumor laterality in radical prostatectomy and transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: a comparative study. Asian J Androl. 2014;0(0):0spa
dc.relation.references16. Cookson MS, Fleshner NE, Soloway SM, Fair WR. Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: Accuracy and clinical implications. J Urol. 1997;157(2):559-562spa
dc.relation.references17. Fernandes ET, Sundaram CP, Long R, Soltani M, Ercole CJ. Biopsy Gleason score: how does it correlate with the final pathological diagnosis in prostate cancer? Br J Urol. 1997;79(4):615-617.spa
dc.relation.references18. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines Version 4.2018 Prostate Cancer. Aug 15, 2018.spa
dc.relation.references19. Luis J, Matiz P, Julián N, Reyes A, Paula M, Becerra S. Evolución de la mortalidad por cáncer de próstata en Colombia : estudio ecológico. 2014;23(1):3-10.spa
dc.relation.references20. Ismail MT, Gomella LG. Transrectal prostate biopsy. Urol Clin North Am. 2013; 40(4):457-472.spa
dc.relation.references21. Stamey T. Making the most out of six systematic biopsies. Urology. 1995; 45(1):2-12.spa
dc.relation.references22. Litwin MS, Tan H-J. The Diagnosis and Treatment of Prostate Cancer. Jama. 2017;317(24):2532. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.7248.spa
dc.relation.references23. D’Elia C, Cerruto M, Cioffi A, Novella G, Cavalleri S, Artibani W. Upgrading and upstaging in prostate cancer: From prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy. Mol Clin Oncol. 2014:1145-1149.spa
dc.relation.references24. Mills SE, Fowler JE. Gleason histologic grading of prostatic carcinoma. Correlations between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens. Cancer. 1986;57(2):346-349. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3942967spa
dc.relation.references25. Cohen MS, Hanley RS, Kurteva T, et al. Comparing the Gleason Prostate Biopsy and Gleason Prostatectomy Grading System: The Lahey Clinic Medical Center Experience and an International Meta-Analysis. Eur Urol. 2008;54(2):371-381. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.03.049.spa
dc.relation.references26. Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM. Upgrading and Downgrading of Prostate Cancer from Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy: Incidence and Predictive Factors Using the Modified Gleason Grading System and Factoring in Tertiary Grades. Eur Urol. 2012;61(5):1019-1024. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.050.spa
dc.relation.references27. Kuroiwa K, Shiraishi T, Naito S. Gleason score correlation between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens and prediction of high-grade Gleason patterns: significance of central pathologic review. Urolo gy 2011;77:407–11.spa
dc.relation.references28. Moussa AS, Li J, Soriano M, et al. Prostate biopsy clinical and pathological variables that predict significant grading changes in patients with intermediate and high grade prostate cancer. BJU Int 2009;103:43–8.spa
dc.relation.references29. Ruijter E, van Leenders G, Miller G, et al. Errors in histological grading by prostatic needle biopsy specimens: frequency and pre- disposing factors. J Pathol 2000;192: 229-33spa
dc.relation.references30. Imamoto T, Suzuki H, Utsumi T, et al. External validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathol- ogy among Japanese patients. Urology 2010;76:404–10.spa
dc.relation.references31. Capitanio U, Karakiewicz PI, Valiquette L, et al. Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant Glea- son sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology 2009;73:1087–91.spa
dc.relation.references32. Freedland SJ, Kane CJ, Amling CL, et al. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications. Urology 2007;69:495–9.spa
dc.subject.proposalGLEASONspa
dc.subject.proposalPROSTATECTOMIAspa
dc.subject.proposalBIOPSIAspa


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Derechos Reservados - Universidad Militar Nueva Granada, 2019
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Derechos Reservados - Universidad Militar Nueva Granada, 2019