首页> 外文期刊>Urology >Editorial comment
【24h】

Editorial comment

机译:编辑评论

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

We appreciate Dr. Crook's excellent comments and agree on some points. First, retrospectively, it might have been more useful to permit a cluster of core biopsies (3 or 4) to be taken from the suspicious areas. However, because we restricted enrollment to patients with 1-cm suspicious lesions on erMRI, we thought that the stringent requirement of 1 biopsy would be offset by the lesion size. However, if this technique were to be used for focal therapy, treating a relatively larger volume of gland, even if not affected by PCa, would be unlikely to be harmful and approximation of the target not problematic, because there would be no need to spare the normal prostate gland.
机译:我们感谢克鲁克博士的出色评论,并同意其中的一些观点。首先,回顾性地,允许从可疑区域中取一堆核心活检样本(3或4)可能更有用。但是,由于我们在erMRI上将登记范围限制为1 cm可疑病变的患者,因此我们认为严格的1次活检要求将被病变大小所抵消。但是,如果将该技术用于局灶治疗,则即使未受到PCa的影响,治疗相对较大量的腺体也不太可能有害,并且接近靶标也不会造成问题,因为无需多余的精力正常的前列腺。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号