Objective:To establish the prediction model of postoperative Gleason score (GS) risk of prostatic cancer (PCa), and to compare the diagnostic efficacy of the model and each independent risk factor for PCa medium-high risk group.Methods:The clinical data of 362 patients who accepted transrectal prostate biopsy in the Run Run Shaw Hospital Affiliated to Zhejiang University School of Medicine from January 2018 to December 2019 were analyzed retrospectively, and a total of 343 patients with prostate cancer who met the enrollment criteria were selected. According to the GS grading system, these patients were divided into low risk group, moderate risk group and high risk group. At first, the single factor analysis and Spearman rank correlation were used to find out the effective indicators with good correlation with GS risk. Then, multiple linear regression equation was applied for multi-factor analysis to obtain the independent risk factors and the prediction model for predicting GS risk, and then the ROC curve was used to compare the diagnostic efficacy of each independent risk factor and prediction model for PCa medium-high risk group.Results:In the single factor analysis, the differences of all indicators in GS risk were statistically significant (all P<0.05). In the correlation analysis with GS risk, except for the indicators of prostate volume (all P>0.05), the other indexes had linear correlations with the different risks of GS (all P<0.05). Among them, the total prostate specific antigen and two-dimensional ultrasound (2D-US) score showed moderate positive correlations( rs=0.402, 0.579, all P<0.001), contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) score showed a high positive correlation ( rs=0.709, P<0.001), and the rest indexes showed low positive correlations. Multiple linear regression was used to obtain two independent risk factors of 2D-US score ( X1) and CEUS score ( X2) for the prediction of GS risk, then, a prediction model was established: Y=0.863+ 0.066 X1+ 0.27 X2, the corresponding linear coefficient differences were statistically significant(all P<0.05). By the ROC analysis, the areas under the curves of 2D-US score, CEUS score and the prediction model were 0.838, 0.906 and 0.907, respectively. Conclusions:2D-US score and CEUS score are independent risk factors for predicting postoperative GS risk, and the diagnostic efficacy of the prediction model is higher than those of the 2D-US score and CEUS score for the medium-high risk group.

Objective:To preliminary explore the potential application value of ultrasound shear wave elastography (SWE) in assessing functional defecation disorders compared with anorectal manometry and X-ray defecography.Methods:From July 2022 to December 2022, the results of SWE, anorectal manometry and X-ray defecography of 39 patients with functional defecation disorders visited Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine of Zhejiang University were retrospectively analyzed. Non-parametric tests were used to analyze the changes in elastic modulus values of anorectal muscle groups at different phase.Chi-square test and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the consistency between SWE, X-ray defecography and anorectal manometry in evaluating spastic pelvic floor syndrome, as well as the changes in the anorectal angle measured by SWE and X-ray defecography (from resting phase to contraction phase, resting phase to strain phase (Valsalval maneuver).Results:The elastic modulus values measured by SWE of the puborectalis muscle, internal anal sphincter, and external anal sphincter of patients with functional defecation disorders during strain phase were 32.4 kPa (19.1 kPa, 60.3 kPa), 25.3 kPa (17.0 kPa, 53.8 kPa), and 28.6 kPa (21.3 kPa, 55.1 kPa), respectively, which had no statistically significant differences compared to elastic modulus values in resting phase (33.5 kPa (22.1 kPa, 44.9 kPa), 28.9 kPa (22.4 kPa, 45.1 kPa), and 32.4 kPa (23.1 kPa, 49.4 kPa), all P>0.05). The consistency between SWE and X-ray defecography in the diagnosis of spastic pelvic floor syndrome was poor (Kappa=0.190). The consistency between SWE and anorectal manometry in the diagnosis of dyssynergic defecation was poor (Kappa=0.160). The differences in the changes of anorectal angle detected by SWE and X-ray defecography were within the 95% consistency limit ( P=0.429 and 0.582). Conclusion:SWE is sensitive in evaluating changes in anorectal angle, and it shows good consistency with defecography in assessing angle changes.