RESUMO
RESUMEN Objetivo : Describir los resultados de la biopsia prostática transperineal por fusión de la resonancia magnética cognitiva y ultrasonido en la detección del cáncer. Materiales y métodos : Estudio de serie de casos, retrospectivo, realizado en Clínica Delgado entre julio del 2019 y octubre del 2021. Se incluyó pacientes con examen digital de próstata y/o Antígeno Prostático Específico anormal e imágenes de Resonancia Magnética de próstata con lesiones categoría PI-RADS 4 o 5. Excluyendo a pacientes con trastorno de coagulación, lesiones rectales, imposibilidad para abducción, comorbilidades para anestesia. Registramos las características clínicas, demográficas, datos de antígeno prostático específico, volumen de la próstata, lesiones PI-RADS, tasas de cáncer, complicaciones. Resultados : Se evaluaron 18 pacientes, con edad media de 69,33 ± 7,67 años. La media del antígeno prostático específico de 14,94 ± 12,42 ng/mL. La media del volumen de próstata de 57,72 ± 28,68 cc. Al examen digital de la próstata 16/18 (88.88 %) pacientes tenían sospecha de cáncer. Se hicieron biopsias con 19 núcleos en pacientes cuya RMNmP tenían lesiones con categoría de PI-RADS 4 en 6/18 (33,33 %) de los cuales 3 resultaron positivas a Adenocarcinoma y otras 3 negativas a cáncer. Biopsia con 16 núcleos en PIRADS 5 en 12/18 (66,67 %) pacientes, resultando todas positivas a cáncer. Adenocarcinoma Acinar en 15/18 (83,33 %) con Gleason 6 en 2/18 (11,11 %) y Gleason ≥ 7 en 13/18 (72,22 %) pacientes. Complicaciones leves como hematuria 1/18 (5,6 %), disuria terminal 8/18 (44,4 %) y molestia perineal 7/18 (38,8 %) y ninguna infecciosa. Conclusiones : la biopsia prostática transperineal por fusión de imágenes de resonancia magnética cognitiva y ultrasonido es factible, segura, con tasas importantes de positividad y sin infecciones.
ABSTRACT Objective : To describe the results of transperineal prostate biopsy by fusion of cognitive magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound in the detection of cancer. Materials and methods : A retrospective case series study conducted at the Delgado Clinic between July 2019 and October 2021. Patients with digital prostate examination and/or abnormal Prostatic Specific Antigen and prostate MRI images with category lesions were included PI-RADS 4 or 5. Excluding patients with coagulation disorders, rectal injuries, impossibility for abduction, comorbidities for anesthesia. We recorded clinical and demographic characteristics, prostate-specific antigen data, prostate volume, PI-RADS lesions, cancer rates, and complications. Results: 18 patients were evaluated, with a mean age of 69.33 ± 7.67 years. The mean prostate specific antigen was 14.94 ± 12.42 ng/mL. The mean prostate volume was 57.72 ± 28.68 cc. At the digital examination of the prostate, 16/18 (88.88%) patients had suspected cancer. Biopsies with 19 cores were performed in patients whose NMRmP had lesions with PI-RADS category 4 in 6/18 (33.33%), of which 3 were positive for Adenocarcinoma and another 3 were negative for cancer. Biopsy with 16 PIRADS 5 cores in 12/18 (66.67%) patients, all of which were positive for cancer. Acinar adenocarcinoma in 15/18 (83.33%) with Gleason 6 in 2/18 (11.11%) and Gleason ≥ 7 in 13/18 (72.22%) patients. Mild complications such as hematuria 1/18 (5.6%), terminal dysuria 8/18 (44.4%) and perineal discomfort 7/18 (38.8%) and none infectious. Conclusions : transperineal prostate biopsy by fusion of cognitive magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound is feasible, safe, with significant positivity rates and without infections.
RESUMO
Purpose: Despite the call to increase the number of radiation oncologists in Latin America, the quality, similarity, and number of residency training programs are unknown. We seek to describe the current state of residency programs in radiation oncology in Latin America. Methods and Materials: Latin American Residents in Radiation Oncology performed a cross-sectional analysis of universities and training centers for radiation oncologists in Latin America. Latin American Residents in Radiation Oncology members identified and contacted current residents and specialists at each center to obtain information and documents that described their training curricula. Results: As of 2020, 13 of 23 (56.5%) Latin American countries have radiation oncology training. Seventy-three training centers were identified (59 active and 14 inactive), associated with 28 universities. On average, each active center trains 2.6 new residents per year, and in total, 156 residents are trained annually. The average length of training programs is 3.6 years. Brazil and Mexico comprise 31 (52.5%) and 7 (11.9%) of active programs, respectively, and 64 (41.8%) and 50 (32.7%) residents, respectively. Training is available in 38 cities in 13 countries, and outside Brazil and Mexico, only 13 cities in 11 countries (9 capitals and 4 noncapital cities). Individualized curriculum documents were provided by 20 (83.3%) of 24 non-Brazilian programs, while 1 standardized guideline was provided for Brazilian training programs. These demonstrated variation between subjects taught, their devoted time, outside specialty rotations, and experiences in modern techniques. Seventy-five percent include volumetric modulated arc therapy, 70% stereotactic radiosurgery, and 55% stereotactic body radiation therapy training. One-hundred percent include gynecologic brachytherapy education and <50% brachytherapy education in other disease sites. Conclusions: Training is highly centralized in capital cities. The number of trainees is insufficient to close the current human resource divide but is limited by available job openings. Over 50% of training programs now include technological training in stereotactic radiosurgery, stereotactic body radiation therapy, or volumetric modulated arc therapy; however, substantial variation still exists. The development of radiation oncology specialists must be improved and modernized to address the escalating demand for cancer care.
