Volume 2, Issue 2 (Spring 2018)
J Res Urol 2018, 2(2): 1-6 |
Back to browse issues page
Mohamad ali Amirzargar1 
, Mohamad Jafari2 , Alidad Kiani * 3, Ghodratollah Roshanaei4 , Seyed Jaber Rasouli Jamkhaneh5 , Hajir Seyf Panahi6 , Mahzad Roustaei7
, Mohamad Jafari2 , Alidad Kiani * 3, Ghodratollah Roshanaei4 , Seyed Jaber Rasouli Jamkhaneh5 , Hajir Seyf Panahi6 , Mahzad Roustaei7
1- Professor, Urology and Nephrology Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran, Professor, Urology and Nephrology Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Pathology, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran, Assistant Professor, Department of Pathology, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
3- Resident of Urology, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran, Resident of Urology, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran , kian_a2006@yahoo.com
4- Associate Professor, Department of Biostatistics, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamedan, Iran, Associate Professor, Department of Biostatistics, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamedan, Iran
5- Resident of Urology, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran, Resident of Urology, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
6- Medical Doctor Student, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran, Medical Doctor Student, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
7- MSc, Member of Urology and Nephrology Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamedan, Iran, MSc, Member of Urology and Nephrology Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamedan, Iran
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Pathology, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran, Assistant Professor, Department of Pathology, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
3- Resident of Urology, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran, Resident of Urology, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran , kian_a2006@yahoo.com
4- Associate Professor, Department of Biostatistics, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamedan, Iran, Associate Professor, Department of Biostatistics, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamedan, Iran
5- Resident of Urology, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran, Resident of Urology, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
6- Medical Doctor Student, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran, Medical Doctor Student, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
7- MSc, Member of Urology and Nephrology Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamedan, Iran, MSc, Member of Urology and Nephrology Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamedan, Iran
Abstract: (4899 Views)
Background and aim: The distinction between benign and malignant prostate lesions is one of the important issues in pathology. Misdiagnosis in these cases can lead to unnecessary treatments. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of P504S sputum penetration in diagnosis of prostate cancer.
Material and Methods: In this experimental study, 33 benign samples and 33 prostate malignant samples from needle biopsy were selected by available sampling method and the immunohistochemical marker P504S was determined. Following the pathology diagnostic method as a standard, the immunohistochemical marker P504S of benign cases was compared to malignant ones (P<0.05).
Results: Comparing the results of two methods of P504S staining and pathologic methods showed that there is a significant relationship between these two methods in the diagnosis of prostate malignancies. (P=0.0001). Also, considering the pathologic diagnosis as the standard Gold method for diagnosis of prostate malignancies, all four sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for P504S staining method in diagnosis of prostate malignancies was 97%.
Conclusion: The findings of this study showed that this coloration has high sensitivity, specificity and high predictive value in evaluating the value of diagnosis of P504S staining method in diagnosis of prostate cancer. Therefore it can be used with high confidence in the differentiation of benign prostatic malignant lesions in diagnostic laboratories.
Material and Methods: In this experimental study, 33 benign samples and 33 prostate malignant samples from needle biopsy were selected by available sampling method and the immunohistochemical marker P504S was determined. Following the pathology diagnostic method as a standard, the immunohistochemical marker P504S of benign cases was compared to malignant ones (P<0.05).
Results: Comparing the results of two methods of P504S staining and pathologic methods showed that there is a significant relationship between these two methods in the diagnosis of prostate malignancies. (P=0.0001). Also, considering the pathologic diagnosis as the standard Gold method for diagnosis of prostate malignancies, all four sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for P504S staining method in diagnosis of prostate malignancies was 97%.
Conclusion: The findings of this study showed that this coloration has high sensitivity, specificity and high predictive value in evaluating the value of diagnosis of P504S staining method in diagnosis of prostate cancer. Therefore it can be used with high confidence in the differentiation of benign prostatic malignant lesions in diagnostic laboratories.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Urologic oncology
Received: 2018/06/10 | Accepted: 2018/08/27 | Published: 2018/08/27
Received: 2018/06/10 | Accepted: 2018/08/27 | Published: 2018/08/27
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |