Қуық асты безінің қатерлі ісігін диагностикалау эволюциясы: пальпациядан жасанды интеллектке дейін

Қатерлі ісіктің ең көп таралған түрлерінің бірі бола отырып, қуық асты безінің қатерлі ісігіуық асты безінің қатерлі ісігі заманауи, жоғары сезімтал және нақты диагностикалық әдістерді қолдана отырып, белгілі бір диагностикалық тәсілді қажет етеді. Қолданыстағы әдістерді талдау ауруды ерте анықтау мен бақылаудың ең тиімді стратегияларын анықтайды.

Зерттеудің мақсаты. Қуық асты безінің қатерлі ісігіндегі диагностикалық алгоритм туралы бар деректерді жалпылау, қолданылатын процедуралардың әрқайсысының күшті және әлсіз жақтарын анықтау, қазіргі диагностикалық әдістердің әсері мен тиімділігін бағалау.

Әдістер мен материалдар. Google Scholar, PubMed, Elsevier, Web of Science және Medline дерекқорларындағы ақпаратты іздеу және талдау. Шолуға Мета-анализдер, рандомизацияланған бақыланатын зерттеулер, жүйелі шолулар және клиникалық зерттеулер деректері кіреді. Қайталанатын мақалалар алынып тасталды, ақпарат тексерілді және маңызды емес жұмыстар алынып тасталды. Нәтижесінде қарастырылып отырған мәселе жан-жақты талдауды қамтамасыз ететін 75 толық мәтінді құжаттар мен дерексіз құжаттар таңдалды.

Зерттеу нәтижелері. Біріктірілген тәсілдер ұйқы безінің қатерлі ісігін диагностикалаудың дәлдігін арттырады. PSMA-pet метастаздарды анықтауды жақсартады, бірақ дамушы елдерде қымбат және қол жетімді емес. Сұйық биопсияның әлеуеті бар, бірақ сезімталдықты жақсартуды қажет етеді. Трансректальды ультрадыбыстық зерттеу маңызды құрал болып қала береді, бірақ оның диагностикалық мәні шектеулі. Магниттік-резонанстық мақсатты биопсия жүйелі биопсияға қарағанда клиникалық маңызды қатерлі ісікті анықтайды. Диагностикадағы жасанды интеллект дамуды қажет етеді, бірақ оны қолдану нақты реттелуі керек.

1. World Cancer Research Fund. Prostate cancer statistics [Electronic source] // World Cancer Research Fund. – 2022. – URL: https://www.wcrf.org/preventing-cancer/cancer-statistics/prostate-cancer-statistics/#latestprostate-cancer-data (Accessed: 04.12.2024).

2. Chen J., Zhang D., Yan W., Yang D., Shen B. Translational bioinformatics for diagnostic and prognostic prediction of prostate cancer in the nextgeneration sequencing era // BioMed Research International. – 2013. – Vol. 2013. – Article No. 901578. – DOI: 10.1155/2013/901578.

3. Perdana N. R., Mochtar C. A., Umbas R., Hamid A. R. The risk factors of prostate cancer and its prevention: A literature review // Acta Medica Indonesiana. – 2016. – Vol. 48(3). – P. 228-238.

4. The global cancer burden is growing amid a mounting need for services. [Electronic source] // World Health Organization [Website]. – 2024. – URL: https://www.who.int/news/item/01-02-2024-global-cancer-burden-growing--amidst-mounting-need-for-services (Accessed: 04.12.2024).

5. Rebello R. J., Oing C., Knudsen K. E., et al. Prostate cancer // Nature Reviews Disease Primers. – 2021. – Vol. 7. – Article No. 9. – DOI: 10.1038/s41572-020-00243-0.

6. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2024. – Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 2024. – 76 p.

7. O’Reilly J. A., O’Kennedy R. J. Prostate cancer detection: complexities and strategies // Cancer Treatment Journal. – 2017. – Vol. 2. – P. 18-25.

8. Descotes J. L. Diagnosis of prostate cancer // Asian Journal of Urology. – 2019. – Vol. 6(2). – P. 129-136. – DOI: 10.1016/j.ajur.2018.11.007.

9. Bhattacharya I., Khandwala Y. S., Vesal S., et al. A review of artificial intelligence in prostate cancer detection on imaging // Therapeutic Advances in Urology. – 2022. – Vol. 14. – Article No. 17562872221128791. – DOI: 10.1177/17562872221128791.

10. Thompson I. M., Pauler D. K., Goodman P. J., et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level of ≤4.0 ng per milliliter // New England Journal of Medicine. – 2004. – Vol. 350. – P. 2239-2246.

11. Shinohara K., Master V. A., Chi T., Carroll P. R. Prostate needle biopsy techniques and interpretation // Genitourinary Oncology. – Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 2006. – P. 111-119.

12. Catalona W. J. History of the discovery and clinical translation of prostate-specific antigen // Asian Journal of Urology. – 2014. – Vol. 1(1). – P. 12-14.

13. Wilson J. M. G., Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. – Geneva: World Health Organization, 1968. – (Public Health Paper; no. 34). – 164 p.

14. Thompson I. M., Ankerst D. P. Prostate-specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer // Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ). – 2007. – Vol. 176(13). – P. 1853-1858. – DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.060955.

15. Пушкарь Д. Ю., Бормотин А. В., Говоров А. В. Алгоритм ранней диагностики рака предстательной железы [Электронный ресурс] // МГМСУ им. Н. А. Семашко [Web-сайт]. – URL: https://www.rmj.ru/articles/urologiya/Algoritm_ranney_diagnostiki_raka_predstatelynoy_ghelezy/ (Accessed: 06.12.2024).

16. Oesterling J. E., Jacobsen S. J., Cooner W. H. The use of age-specific reference ranges for serum prostate-specific antigen in men 60 years old or older // Journal of Urology. – 1995. – Vol. 153. – P. 1160-1163.

17. Van Poppel H., Albreht T., Basu P., Hogenhout R., Collen S., Roobol M. Serum PSA-based early detection of prostate cancer in Europe and globally: past, present and future [Electronic source] // Nature Reviews Urology [Website]. – 2022. – URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41585-022-00638-6 (Accessed: 07.12.2024).

18. Sandhu G. S., Andriole G. L. Overdiagnosis of prostate cancer [Electronic source]// Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs [Website]. – 2012. – URL: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3540879/ (Accessed: 07.12.2024).

19. Lopes P. M., Sepúlveda L., Ramos R., Sousa P. The role of transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: new contributions // Radiologia Brasileira. – 2015. – Vol. 48(1). – P. 7-11. – DOI: 10.1590/0100-3984.2013.0010.

20. Ozah E., Imasogie D. E. The diagnostic accuracy of prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination in the diagnosis of prostate cancer at the University of Benin Teaching Hospital // Journal of the West African College of Surgeons. – 2023. – Vol. 13(3). – P. 91-95. – DOI: 10.4103/jwas. jwas_32_23. – URL: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10395850/ (Accessed: 20.06.2025).

21. Abdrabo A. A., Fadlalla A. I., Fadl-Elmula I. M. Significance of serum total prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination in the diagnosis of prostate cancer // Saudi Medical Journal. – 2011. – Vol. 32(11). – P. 1133-1136.

22. Yusim I., Krenawi M., Mazor E., et al. The use of prostate-specific antigen density to predict clinically significant prostate cancer // Scientific Reports. – 2020. – Vol. 10(1). – Article 20015. – DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-76786-9.

23. Youn S. Y., Choi M. H., Lee Y. J., et al. Prostate gland volume estimation: anteroposterior diameters measured on axial versus sagittal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance images // Ultrasonography. – 2023. – Vol. 42(1). – P. 154-164. – DOI: 10.14366/usg.22104.

24. Wang S., Kozarek J., Russell R., et al. Diagnostic performance of prostate-specific antigen density for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in the era of magnetic resonance imaging: A systematic review and meta-analysis // European Urology Oncology. – 2024. – Vol. 7(2). – P. 189-203. – DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.08.002.

25. Teoh M. M., Nyandoro M. G., Jacob A., Cooke D. Digital rectal examination: a missed opportunity with fatal consequences // ANZ Journal of Surgery. – 2023. – Vol. 93. – P. 775-776. – DOI: 10.1111/ans.18025.

26. Hodge K. K., McNeal J. E., Terris M. K., Stamey T. A. Random systematic versus direct- ed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate // Journal of Urology. – 1989. – Vol. 142(1). – P. 71-74.

27. Norberg M., Egevad L., Holmberg L., Sparén P., Norlén B. J., Busch C. The sextant protocol for ultrasound-guided core biopsies of the prostate underestimates the presence of cancer // Urology. – 1997. – Vol. 50(4). – P. 562-566.

28. Gravestock P., Shaw M., Veeratterapillay R., Heer R. Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Biopsy Approaches. Urologic Cancers. – Brisbane: Exon Publications, 2022. – Bookshelf ID: NBK585968. – DOI: 10.36255/exon-publications-urologic-cancers-prostate-cancer-biopsy.

29. Hansen N.L., Barrett T., Lloyd T., Warren A., Samel C., Bratt O., Kastner C. Optimising the number of cores for magnetic resonance imaging-guided targeted and systematic transperineal prostate biopsy // BJU International. – 2020. – Vol. 125(2). – P. 260-269. – DOI: 10.1111/bju.14865.

30. Chopra S., Foltz W. D., Milosevic M. F., et al. Comparing oxygen-sensitive MRI (BOLD R2*) with oxygen electrode measurements: A pilot study in men with prostate cancer // International Journal of Radiation Biology. – 2009. – Vol. 85. – P. 805-813.

31. Rzhevskiy A. S., Kapitannikova A. Y., Vasilescu S. A., et al. Isolation of circulating tumor cells from seminal fluid of patients with prostate cancer using inertial microfluidics // Cancers (Basel). – 2022. – Vol. 14(14). – Article No. 3364. – DOI: 10.3390/cancers14143364.

32. Alahdal M., Perera R. A., Moschovas M. C., Patel V., Perera R. J. Current advances of liquid biopsies in prostate cancer: Molecular biomarkers // Molecular Therapy Oncolytics. – 2023. – Vol. 30. – P. 27-38. – DOI: 10.1016/j.omto.2023.07.004.

33. Zhen L., Liu X., Yegang C., et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis // BMC Cancer. – 2019. – Vol. 19. – Article No. 1244. – DOI: 10.1186/s12885-019-6434-9.

34. Martins M., Regusci S., Rohner S., et al. The diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI for detection and localization of prostate cancer depends on the affected region // BJUI Compass. – 2021. – Vol. 2(3). – P. 178-187.

35. McNeal J. E. The zonal anatomy of the prostate // The Prostate. – 1981. – Vol. 2. – P. 35–49.

36. Ahmed H. U., Bosaily A. E., Brown L. C., et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study // The Lancet. – 2017. – Vol. 389(10071). – P. 815-822.

37. Kasivisvanathan V., Rannikko A. S., Borghi M., et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis // New England Journal of Medicine. – 2018. – Vol. 378(19). – P. 1767-1777.

38. Schieda N., Nisha Y., Hadziomerovic A. R., et al. Comparison of positive predictive values of biparametric MRI and multiparametric MRI–directed transrectal US-guided targeted prostate biopsy // Radiology. – 2024. – Vol. 311(3). – Article No. 231383. – DOI: 10.1148/radiol.231383.

39. Abramson M., DeMasi M., Zhu D., et al. Biparametric versus multiparametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in a diverse, multiethnic population // Abdominal Radiology. – 2024. – Vol. 49. – P. 2491-2498. – DOI: 10.1007/s00261-024-04332-6.

40. Геворкян А. Р., Молодцов М. С., Александров Е. В. Диагностика рака предстательной железы в рамках высокотехнологичной специализированной поликлинической медицинской помощи // Вестник урологии. – 2023. – Vol. 11. – № 1. – P. 26-33. – DOI: 10.21886/2308-6424-2023-11-1-26-33.

41. Standard Operating Procedure for Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis, Staging and Management of Prostate Cancer [Electronic source] // American Urological Association [Website]. – URL: https://www.auanet.org (Accessed: 14.01.2025).

42. Turkbey B., Rosenkrantz A. B., Haider M. A., et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 // European Urology. – 2019. – Vol. 76(3). – P. 340-351. – DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033.

43. Önder Ö., Ayva M., Yaraşır Y., et al. Long-term follow-up results of multiparametric prostate MRI and the prognostic value of PI-RADS: a singlecenter retrospective cohort study // Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology. – 2024. – Vol. 30(3). – P. 139-151. – DOI: 10.4274/dir.2023.232414.

44. Kim J. Y., Kim S. H., Kim Y. H., Lee H. J., Kim M. J., Choi M. S. Low-risk prostate cancer: the accuracy of multiparametric MR imaging for detection // Radiology. – 2014. – Vol. 271(2). – P. 435-444.

45. Lopes P. M., Sepúlveda L., Ramos R., Sousa P. The role of transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: new contributions // Radiologia Brasileira. – 2015. – Vol. 48(1). – P. 7-11.

46. Moe A., Hayne D. Transrectal ultrasound biopsy of the prostate: does it still have a role in prostate cancer diagnosis? // Translational Andrology and Urology. – 2020. – Vol. 9(6). – P. 3017-3025.

47. Vesal S., Bhattacharya I., Jahanandish H., et al. ProsDectNet: Bridging the gap in prostate cancer detection via transrectal B-mode ultrasound imaging [Electronic source] // arXiv [Website]. – 2023. – URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.05334 (Accessed: 15.01.2025).

48. Chen F. K., de Castro Abreu A. L., Palmer S. L. Utility of ultrasound in the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of prostate cancer: state of the art // Journal of Nuclear Medicine. – 2016. – Vol. 57, Suppl. 3. – P. 13-18.

49. Зуков Р. А., Вязьмин В. В., Чанчикова Н. Г. Диагностические возможности ПЭТ/КТ с 18F-PSMA у пациентов с подозрением на рак предстательной железы // Эффективная фармакотерапия. – 2022. – Т. 18. – № 13. – С. 6-10.

50. Leen E., Averkiou M., Arditi M., et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound assessment of the vascular effects of novel therapeutics in early-stage trials // European Radiology. – 2012. – Vol. 22. – P. 1442-1450

51. Jansen B. H. E., van Leeuwen P. J., Wondergem M., et al. Detection of recurrent prostate cancer using prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in patients not meeting the Phoenix criteria for biochemical recurrence after curative radiotherapy // European Urology Oncology. – 2021. – Vol. 4(5). – P. 821-825. – DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.01.002.

52. Cornford P., van den Bergh R. C. N., Briers E., et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II: Treatment of Relapsing, Metastatic, and Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer // European Urology. – 2017. – Vol. 71(4). – P. 630-642.

53. Koo P. J., Petrylak D. Novel imaging strategies for prostate cancer // Future Oncology. – 2021. – Vol. 17(27). – P. 3545-3548. – DOI: 10.2217/fon2021-0629.

54. Crawford E. D., Koo P. J., Shore N., et al. A clinician’s guide to next-generation imaging in patients with advanced prostate cancer (RADAR III) // Journal of Urology. – 2019. – Vol. 201(4). – P. 682-692.

55. Calais J., Ceci F., Eiber M., Hope T.A., Hofman M.S., Rischpler C., Bach-Gansmo T., Nanni C., Savir-Baruch B., Elashoff D., Grogan T., Dahlbom M., Slavik R., Gartmann J., Nguyen K., Lok V., Jadvar H., Kishan A.U., Rettig M.B., Reiter R.E., Fendler W.P., Czernin J. 18F-fluciclovine PET-CT and 68GaPSMA-11 PET-CT in patients with early biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy: a prospective, single-centre, single-arm, comparative imaging trial // Lancet Oncology. – 2019. – Vol. 20(9). – P. 1286- 1294. – DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30415-2. – Erratum: Lancet Oncol. – 2019. – Vol. 20(11). – P. 613; – 2020. Vol. 21(6). – P. 304.

56. Ghai S., Haider M. A. Multiparametric-MRI in diagnosis of prostate cancer // Indian Journal of Urology. – 2015. – Vol. 31(3). – P. 194-201. – DOI: 10.4103/0970-1591.159606.

57. Evangelista L., Zattoni F., Cassarino G., et al. PET/MRI in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis // European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. – 2021. – Vol. 48(3). – P. 859-873. – DOI: 10.1007/s00259-020-05025-0.

58. Jannusch K., Bruckmann N. M., Morawitz J., et al. Recurrent prostate cancer: combined role for MRI and PSMA-PET in 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI // European Radiology. – 2024. – Vol. 34(7). – P. 4789-4800. – DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-10442-4.

59. Liu F. Y., Sheng T. W., Tseng J. R., et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) fusion imaging in prostate cancer: PET-CT vs PET-MRI // British Journal of Radiology. – 2022. – Vol. 95(1131). – Article No. 20210728. – DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20210728.

60. Gammel M. C. M., Solari E. L., Eiber M., et al. A clinical role of PET-MRI in prostate cancer? // Seminars in Nuclear Medicine. – 2024. – Vol. 54(1). – P. 132-140. – DOI: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2023.08.001.

61. Alarcón-Zendejas A. P., Scavuzzo A., JiménezRíos M. A., et al. The promising role of new molecular biomarkers in prostate cancer: From coding and non-coding genes to artificial intelligence approaches // Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases. – 2022. – Vol. 25. – P. 431-443. – DOI: 10.1038/s41391-022-00537-2.

62. Porzycki P., Ciszkowicz E. Modern biomarkers in prostate cancer diagnosis // Central European Journal of Urology. – 2020. – Vol. 73(3). – P. 300- 306. – DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2020.0067R.

63. Jansen F. H., van Schaik R. H., Kurstjens J., et al. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) isoform p2PSA in combination with total PSA and free PSA improves diagnostic accuracy in prostate cancer detection // European Urology. – 2010. – Vol. 57. – P. 921-927.

64. Loeb S., Sanda M. G., Broyles D. L., et al. The Prostate Health Index selectively identifies clinically significant prostate cancer // Journal of Urology. – 2015. – Vol. 193. – P. 1163-1169. – DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.10.121.

65. Agbetuyi-Tayo P., Gbadebo M., Rotimi O. A., Rotimi S. O. Advancements in biomarkers of prostate cancer: A review // Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment. – 2024. – Vol. 23. – DOI: 10.1177/15330338241290029.

66. Talley N., O’Connor S. The Gastrointestinal Examination // Talley & O’Connor’s Clinical Examination: A Systematic Guide to Physical Diagnosis. – 2022. – Vol. 1. – P. 235-278.

67. Pfister R., de Bruin E. D., Sterrenburg M. D. et al. Manual muscle testing and hand-held dynamometry in people with inflammatory myopathy: An intra- and interrater reliability and validity study // PLoS One. – 2018. – Vol. 13(3). – Article No. 0194531. – DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194531.

68. Chen J.-Y., Wang P.-Y., Liu M.-Z., et al. Biomarkers for prostate cancer: From diagnosis to treatment // Diagnostics. – 2023. – Vol. 13. – Article No. 3350. – DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13213350.

69. Scovell J. M., Carroll P. R., Klein E. A., Nguyen H. G., Jones J. S. IsoPSA® reduces provider recommendations for biopsy and magnetic resonance imaging in men with total prostate specific antigen ≥ 4 ng/ml: A real world observational clinical utility study // Urology Practice. – 2022. – Vol. 9, № 2. – P. 173-180. – DOI: 10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000291.

70. Klein E. A., Partin A., Lotan Y., et al. Clinical validation of IsoPSA, a single parameter, structurefocused assay for improved detection of prostate cancer: A prospective, multicenter study // Urologic Oncology. – 2022. – Vol. 40(9). – P. 408.e9-408. e18. – DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.06.002.

71. Kennedy A., Hafron J. Incorporation of IsoPSA into clinical practice in the management of elevated prostate-specific antigen based on current guidelines // Reviews in Urology. – 2024. – Vol. 23(3). – P. 63-70.

72. Chang E. K., Gadzinski A. J., Nyame Y. A. Blood and urine biomarkers in prostate cancer: Are we ready for reflex testing in men with an elevated prostate-specific antigen? // Asian Journal of Urology. – 2021. – Vol. 8. – P. 343-353.

73. Agbetuyi-Tayo P., Gbadebo M., Rotimi O. A., Rotimi S. O. Advancements in biomarkers of prostate cancer: A review // Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment. – 2024. – Vol. 23. – DOI: 10.1177/15330338241290029.

74. Alarcón-Zendejas A. P., Scavuzzo A., JiménezRíos M. A., et al. The promising role of new molecular biomarkers in prostate cancer: From coding and non-coding genes to artificial intelligence approaches // Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases. – 2022. – Vol. 25. – P. 431-443. – DOI: 10.1038/s41391-022-00537-2.

75. AI Tool detects prostate cancer more accurately than doctors, UCLA study // UCLA Biomedical AI Research Lab [Website]. – 2025. – URL: https://bair.seas.ucla.edu (Accessed: 22.01.2025).

76. Pellicer-Valero O. J., Marenco Jiménez J. L., Gonzalez-Perez V., et al. Deep Learning for fully automatic detection, segmentation, and Gleason Grade estimation of prostate cancer in multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Images // arXiv preprint. – 2022. – DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2103.12650.