Imperial College London

Professor Hashim Ahmed

Faculty of MedicineDepartment of Surgery & Cancer

Chair in Urology (Clinical)
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

hashim.ahmed

 
 
//

Location

 

5L28Lab BlockCharing Cross Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Publication Type
Year
to

548 results found

Eldred-Evans D, Connor MJ, Bertoncelli Tanaka M, Bass E, Reddy D, Walters U, Stroman L, Espinosa E, Das R, Khosla N, Tam H, Pegers E, Qazi H, Gordon S, Winkler M, Ahmed HUet al., 2022, The Rapid Assessment for Prostate Imaging and Diagnosis (RAPID) prostate cancer diagnostic pathway., BJU Int

OBJECTIVE: To report outcomes within the Rapid Assessment for Prostate Imaging and Diagnosis (RAPID) diagnostic pathway, introduced to reduce patient and healthcare burdens and standardize delivery of pre-biopsy mpMRI and transperineal biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 2130 patients from 3 centres who completed the RAPID pathway (3/April/2017-31/March/2020) were consecutively entered as a prospective audit not requiring ethics committee review. These were also compared to a pre-RAPID cohort of 2,435 patients. In RAPID, patients with an MRI score 4 or 5 and those with PSA density >/=0.12 and MRI score 3 were advised to undergo a biopsy. Primary outcomes were rates of biopsy and cancer detection. Secondary outcomes included comparison of transperineal biopsy techniques, patient acceptability and changes in time to diagnosis before and after RAPID. RESULTS: Median age and PSA were 66 years and 6.6ng/ml, respectively. Biopsy could be omitted in 43% (920/2130). A further 7.9% (168/2130) of patients declined a recommendation for biopsy. The percentage of biopsies avoided between sites did vary (45% vs 36% vs 51%, p<0.001). 30% (221/742) had a local-anaesthetic (grid-and-stepper) transperineal biopsy. Clinically significant cancer detection (any Gleason >/=3+4) was 26% (560/2130) and detection of Gleason 3+3 alone constituted 5.8% (124/2130): detection of Gleason 3+3 did not significantly vary between sites (p=0.7). Among participants who received a transperineal targeted biopsy, there was no difference in cancer detection rates between local anaesthetic, sedation and general anaesthetic. In the 2,435 patients from the pre-RAPID era time-to-diagnosis was 32.1 days (95%CI 29.3-34.9) compared to 15.9 days (95%CI 12.9-34.9) in RAPID. 141 consecutive patient satisfaction surveys indicated a high satisfaction rate with the pathway; 50% indicated a preference for having all tests on a single day. CONCLUSIONS: The RAPID prostate cancer diagnostic pathway

Journal article

Bass E, Pantovic A, Connor M, Loeb S, Rastinehad A, Winkler M, Gabe R, Ahmed Het al., 2022, Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy techniques compared to transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, Vol: 25, Pages: 174-179, ISSN: 1365-7852

BACKGROUND Multiparametric MRI localizes cancer in the prostate, allowing for MRI guided biopsy (MRI-GB) 43 alongside transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy (TRUS-GB). Three MRI-GB approaches exist; visual estimation (COG-TB); fusion software-assisted (FUS-TB) and MRI ‘in-bore’ biopsy (IB-TB). It is unknown whether any of these are superior. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to address 3 questions. First, whether MRI-GB is superior to TRUS-GB at detecting clinically significant PCa (csPCa). Second, whether MRI-GB is superior to TRUS-GB at avoiding detection of insignificant PCa. Third, whether any MRI-GB strategy is superior at detecting csPCa.METHODS A systematic literature review from 2015 to 2019 was performed in accordance with the START recommendations. Studies reporting PCa detection rates, employing MRI-GB and TRUS-GB were included and evaluated using the QUADAS-2 checklist. 1553 studies were found, of which 43 were included in the meta-analysis. RESULTS For csPCa, MRI-GB was superior in detection to TRUS-GB (0.83 vs. 0.63 [p=0.02]). MRI-GB was superior in detection to TRUS-GB at avoiding detection of insignificant PCa. No MRI-GB technique was superior at detecting csPCa (IB-TB 0.87; COG TB 0.81; FUS-TB 0.81,[p=0.55]). There was significant heterogeneity observed between the included studies. CONCLUSIONS In patients with suspected PCa on MRI, MRI-GB offers superior rates of csPCa detection and reduces detection of insignificant PCa compared to TRUS-GB. No individual MRI-GB technique was found to be better in csPCa detection. Prospective adequately powered randomized controlled trials are required.

Journal article

Eldred-Evans D, Burak P, Klimowska-Nassar N, Tam H, Sokhi H, Padhani AR, Connor M, Price D, Gammon M, Day E, Fiorentino F, Winkler M, Ahmed HUet al., 2022, Direct mail from primary care and targeted recruitment strategies achieved a representative uptake of prostate cancer screening, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, Vol: 149, Pages: 98-109, ISSN: 0895-4356

Journal article

Brazao ES, Ahmed HU, 2022, Liquid Markers Should Precede Imaging in Pre-prostate Biopsy Decision-making: Con., Eur Urol Focus

Liquid biomarkers have not yet reached the level of evidence to replace magnetic resonance imaging in the prebiopsy pathway for prostate cancer.

Journal article

Merriel S, Archer S, Forster A, Eldred-Evans D, McGrath J, Ahmed H, Hamilton W, Walter Fet al., 2022, Experiences of ‘traditional’ and ‘one-stop’ MRI-based prostate cancer diagnostic pathways in England: a qualitative study with patients and GPs, BMJ Open, ISSN: 2044-6055

Journal article

Light A, Ahmed HU, Shah TT, 2022, The unclear role of PET-CT in localized radiorecurrent prostate cancer COMMENT, NATURE REVIEWS UROLOGY, ISSN: 1759-4812

Journal article

Chiu PKF, Ahmed HU, Rastinehad AR, 2022, TRUS Biopsy vs Transperineal Biopsy for Suspicion of Prostate Cancer, UROLOGY, Vol: 164, Pages: 18-20, ISSN: 0090-4295

Journal article

Shah TT, Kanthabalan A, Otieno M, Pavlou M, Omar R, Adeleke S, Giganti F, Brew-Graves C, Williams NR, Grierson J, Miah H, Emara A, Haroon A, Latifoltojar A, Sidhu H, Clemente J, Freeman A, Orczyk C, Nikapota A, Dudderidge T, Hindley RG, Virdi J, Arya M, Payne H, Mitra A, Bomanji J, Winkler M, Horan G, Moore CM, Emberton M, Punwani S, Ahmed HUet al., 2022, Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Targeted Biopsies Compared to Transperineal Mapping Biopsies Before Focal Ablation in Localised and Metastatic Recurrent Prostate Cancer After Radiotherapy, EUROPEAN UROLOGY, Vol: 81, Pages: 598-605, ISSN: 0302-2838

Journal article

Jaipuria J, Ahmed HU, 2022, Clinical and pathologic characteristics to select patients for focal therapy or partial gland ablation of nonmetastatic prostate cancer, CURRENT OPINION IN UROLOGY, Vol: 32, Pages: 224-230, ISSN: 0963-0643

Journal article

Peters M, Eldred-Evans D, Connor MJ, Tanaka MB, Bhola-Stewart H, Shah TT, Ahmad S, Noureldin M, Wong K, Tam H, Hrouda D, Winkler M, van Rossum P, Kurver P, Gordon S, Qazi H, Ahmed HU, Falagario UG, Jambor I, Briganti A, Nordstrom T, Carrieri G, Powell L, Joshi S, Pegers Eet al., 2022, Derivation and external validation of a RAPID Risk score for predicting significant prostate cancer, Publisher: ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD, Pages: S360-S361, ISSN: 0167-8140

Conference paper

Mondal S, Edwards S, Wibowo E, Ahmed H, Wassersug RJ, Ellis J, Isaac M, Dimitriou D, Mangar Set al., 2022, Evaluating patterns and factors related to sleep disturbances in prostate cancer patients, Healthcare, Vol: 10, Pages: 1-12, ISSN: 2227-9032

Prostate cancer patients may experience disturbed sleep as a result of their diagnosis or treatment. This study sought to evaluate disturbed sleep and excessive daytime sleepiness in newly diagnosed patients and those receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). This study was conducted with 74 patients. Subjective data using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and actigraphy data on ADT/ADT-naïve patients were collected. The prevalence of poor sleep quality, determined from PSQI and ESS scores, was 50% and 16.7% respectively. Those on ADT (n = 20) had poorer sleep quality as determined by significantly higher PSQI scores (70 vs. 40% scoring > 5) and were more likely to have poor sleep quality, sleep latency, and sleep efficiency than ADT-naïve patients (n = 40). Actigraphy data showed that ADT patients slept significantly longer (7.7 vs. 6.8 h), experienced a higher Fragmentation Index (48.3 vs. 37.4%), and had longer daytime nap duration (64.1 vs. 45.2 min) than ADT-naïve patients. The use of objective measures such as actigraphy in the clinical arena is recommended and may be used as a valuable tool for research into sleep assessment in prostate cancer patients.

Journal article

Reddy D, Peters M, Shah TT, van Son M, Tanaka MB, Huber PM, Lomas D, Rakauskas A, Miah S, Eldred-Evans D, Guillaumier S, Hosking-Jervis F, Engle R, Dudderidge T, Hindley RG, Emara A, Nigam R, McCartan N, Valerio M, Afzal N, Lewi H, Orczyk C, Ogden C, Shergill I, Persad R, Virdi J, Moore CM, Arya M, Winkler M, Emberton M, Ahmed HUet al., 2022, Cancer Control Outcomes Following Focal Therapy Using High-intensity Focused Ultrasound in 1379 Men with Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: A Multi-institute 15-year Experience, EUROPEAN UROLOGY, Vol: 81, Pages: 407-413, ISSN: 0302-2838

Journal article

Aydin A, Ahmed K, Abe T, Raison N, Van Hemelrijck M, Garmo H, Ahmed HU, Mukhtar F, Al-Jabir A, Brunckhorst O, Shinohara N, Zhu W, Zeng G, Sfakianos JP, Gupta M, Tewari A, Goezen AS, Rassweiler J, Skolarikos A, Kunit T, Knoll T, Moltzahn F, Thalmann GN, Powers AGL, Chew BH, Sarica K, Khan MS, Dasgupta Pet al., 2022, Effect of Simulation-based Training on Surgical Proficiency and Patient Outcomes: A Randomised Controlled Clinical and Educational Trial, EUROPEAN UROLOGY, Vol: 81, Pages: 385-393, ISSN: 0302-2838

Journal article

Day E, Eldred-Evans D, Prevost AT, Hashim U A, Fiorentino Fet al., 2022, Adjusting for verification bias in diagnostic accuracy measures when comparing multiple screening 2 tests - an application to the IP1-PROSTAGRAM study, BMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol: 22, ISSN: 1471-2288

Introduction Novel screening tests used to detect a target condition are compared against either a reference standard or other existing screening methods. However, as it is not always possible to apply the reference standard on the whole population under study, verification bias is introduced. Statistical methods exist to adjust estimates to account for this bias. We extend common methods to adjust for verification bias when multiple tests are compared to a reference standard using data from a prospective double blind screening study for prostate cancer. Methods Begg and Greenes method and multiple imputation are extended to include the results of multiple screening tests which determine condition verification status. These two methods are compared to the complete case analysis using the IP1-PROSTAGRAM study data. IP1-PROSTAGRAM used a paired84 cohort double-blind design to evaluate the use of imaging as alternative tests to screen for prostate85 cancer, compared to a blood test called prostate specific antigen (PSA). Participants with positive imaging (index) and/or PSA (control) underwent a prostate biopsy (reference). Results When comparing complete case results to Begg and Greenes and methods of multiple imputation there is a statistically significant increase in the specificity estimates for all screening tests. Sensitivity estimates remained similar across the methods, with completely overlapping 95% confidence intervals. Negative predictive value (NPV) estimates were higher when adjusting for verification bias, compared to complete case analysis, even though the 95% confidence intervals overlap. Positive predictive value (PPV) estimates were similar across all methods. Conclusion Statistical methods are required to adjust for verification bias in accuracy estimates of screening tests. Expanding Begg and Greenes method to include multiple screening tests can be computationally intensive, hence multiple imputation is recommended, especially as it can be modifie

Journal article

Bakavicius A, Marra G, Macek P, Robertson C, Abreu AL, George AK, Malavaud B, Coloby P, Rischmann P, Moschini M, Rastinehad AR, Sidana A, Stabile A, Tourinho-Barbosa R, de la Rosette J, Ahmed H, Polascik T, Cathelineau X, Sanchez-Salas Ret al., 2022, Available evidence on HIFU for focal treatment of prostate cancer: a systematic review, International Brazilian Journal of Urology, Vol: 48, Pages: 263-274, ISSN: 1677-5538

Purpose: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common oncologic disease amongmen. Radical treatment with curative intent provides good oncological results for PCasurvivors, although definitive therapy is associated with significant number of seriousside-effects. In modern-era of medicine tissue-sparing techniques, such as focal HIFU,have been proposed for PCa patients in order to provide cancer control equivalent tothe standard-of-care procedures while reducing morbidities and complications. Theaim of this systematic review was to summarise the available evidence about focalHIFU therapy as a primary treatment for localized PCa.Material and methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature review of focal HIFUtherapy in the MEDLINE database (PROSPERO: CRD42021235581). Articles published inthe English language between 2010 and 2020 with more than 50 patients were included.Results: Clinically significant in-field recurrence and out-of-field progression weredetected to 22% and 29% PCa patients, respectively. Higher ISUP grade group, morepositive cores at biopsy and bilateral disease were identified as the main risk factorsfor disease recurrence. The most common strategy for recurrence management wasdefinitive therapy. Six months after focal HIFU therapy 98% of patients were totallycontinent and 80% of patients retained sufficient erections for sexual intercourse.The majority of complications presented in the early postoperative period and wereclassified as low-grade.

Journal article

Grey ADR, Scott R, Shah B, Acher P, Liyanage S, Pavlou M, Omar R, Chinegwundoh F, Patki P, Shah TT, Hamid S, Ghei M, Gilbert K, Campbell D, Brew-Graves C, Arumainayagam N, Chapman A, McLeavy L, Karatziou A, Alsaadi Z, Collins T, Freeman A, Eldred-Evans D, Bertoncelli-Tanaka M, Tam H, Ramachandran N, Madaan S, Winkler M, Arya M, Emberton M, Ahmed HUet al., 2022, Multiparametric ultrasound versus multiparametric MRI to diagnose prostate cancer (CADMUS): a prospective, multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study, The Lancet Oncology, Vol: 23, Pages: 428-438, ISSN: 1213-9432

Background:Multiparametric MRI of the prostate followed by targeted biopsy is recommended for patients at risk of prostate cancer. However, multiparametric ultrasound is more readily available than multiparametric MRI. Data from paired-cohort validation studies and randomised, controlled trials support the use of multiparametric MRI, whereas the evidence for individual ultrasound methods and multiparametric ultrasound is only derived from case series. We aimed to establish the overall agreement between multiparametric ultrasound and multiparametric MRI to diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer.Methods:We conducted a prospective, multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study in seven hospitals in the UK. Patients at risk of prostate cancer, aged 18 years or older, with an elevated prostate-specific antigen concentration or abnormal findings on digital rectal examination underwent both multiparametric ultrasound and multiparametric MRI. Multiparametric ultrasound consisted of B-mode, colour Doppler, real-time elastography, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Multiparametric MRI included high-resolution T2-weighted images, diffusion-weighted imaging (dedicated high B 1400 s/mm2 or 2000 s/mm2 and apparent diffusion coefficient map), and dynamic contrast-enhanced axial T1-weighted images. Patients with positive findings on multiparametric ultrasound or multiparametric MRI underwent targeted biopsies but were masked to their test results. If both tests yielded positive findings, the order of targeting at biopsy was randomly assigned (1:1) using stratified (according to centre only) block randomisation with randomly varying block sizes. The co-primary endpoints were the proportion of positive lesions on, and agreement between, multiparametric MRI and multiparametric ultrasound in identifying suspicious lesions (Likert score of ≥3), and detection of clinically significant cancer (defined as a Gleason score of ≥4 + 3 in any area or a maximum cancer core length

Journal article

Marsden T, McCartan N, Brown L, Rodriguez-Justo M, Syer T, Brembilla G, Van Hemelrijck M, Coolen T, Attard G, Punwani S, Moore CM, Ahmed HU, Emberton M, ReIMAGINE Study Groupet al., 2022, The ReIMAGINE prostate cancer risk study protocol: A prospective cohort study in men with a suspicion of prostate cancer who are referred onto an MRI-based diagnostic pathway with donation of tissue, blood and urine for biomarker analyses, PLoS One, Vol: 17, ISSN: 1932-6203

INTRODUCTION: The ReIMAGINE Consortium was conceived to develop risk-stratification models that might incorporate the full range of novel prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostics (both commercial and academic). METHODS: ReIMAGINE Risk is an ethics approved (19/LO/1128) multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study which will recruit 1000 treatment-naive men undergoing a multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) due to an elevated PSA (≤20ng/ml) or abnormal prostate examination who subsequently had a suspicious mpMRI (score≥3, stage ≤T3bN0M0). Primary outcomes include the detection of ≥Gleason 7 PCa at baseline and time to clinical progression, metastasis and death. Baseline blood, urine, and biopsy cores for fresh prostate tissue samples (2 targeted and 1 non-targeted) will be biobanked for future analysis. High-resolution scanning of pathology whole-slide imaging and MRI-DICOM images will be collected. Consortium partners will be granted access to data and biobanks to develop and validate biomarkers using correlation to mpMRI, biopsy-based disease status and long-term clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Recruitment began in September 2019(n = 533). A first site opened in September 2019 (n = 296), a second in November 2019 (n = 210) and a third in December 2020 (n = 27). Acceptance to the study has been 65% and a mean of 36.5ml(SD+/-10.0), 12.9ml(SD+/-3.7) and 2.8ml(SD+/-0.7) urine, plasma and serum donated for research, respectively. There are currently 4 academic and 15 commercial partners spanning imaging (~9 radiomics, artificial intelligence/machine learning), fluidic (~3 blood-based and ~2urine-based) and tissue-based (~1) biomarkers. CONCLUSION: The consortium will develop, or adjust, risk models for PCa, and provide a platform for evaluating the role of novel diagnostics in the era of pre-biopsy MRI and targeted biopsy.

Journal article

Penzkofer T, Padhani AR, Turkbey B, Ahmed HUet al., 2022, Assessing the clinical performance of artificial intelligence software for prostate cancer detection on MRI COMMENT, EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, Vol: 32, Pages: 2221-2223, ISSN: 0938-7994

Journal article

Connor MJ, Rai A, Khoo C, Bass EJ, Eldred-Evans D, Agarwal S, Winkler M, Abboudi H, Dasgupta R, El-Husseiny T, Ahmed HUet al., 2022, Patient-reported outcome measures and surgical retreatment rates from 181 patients treated with water vapor thermal therapy (Rezum (TM)), Publisher: ELSEVIER, Pages: S1072-S1072, ISSN: 0302-2838

Conference paper

Reddy DT, Peters M, Shah T, Van Son M, Bertoncelli Tanaka M, Huber P, Lomas D, Rakauskas A, Miah S, Eldred-Evans D, Hosking-Jervis F, Engle R, Dudderidge T, Mccracken S, Greene D, Nigam R, Mccartan N, Valerio M, Orczyk C, Virdi J, Arya M, Ahmed Het al., 2022, Primary focal cryotherapy for non-metastatic prostate cancer: Update from the UK ICE registry, Publisher: ELSEVIER, Pages: S495-S496, ISSN: 0302-2838

Conference paper

Bass EJ, Klimowska-Nassar N, Sasikaran T, Day E, Fiorentino F, Sydes MR, Arumainayagam N, Khoubehi B, Dudderidge T, Pope A, Sokhi H, Winkler M, Ahmed HUet al., 2022, PROState pathway embedded comparative trial: An update to the IP3-PROSPECT study, Publisher: ELSEVIER, Pages: S506-S506, ISSN: 0302-2838

Conference paper

Reddy DT, Eldred-Evans D, Connor M, Hosking-Jervis F, Bertoncelli Tanaka M, Bhola-Stewart H, Maynard W, Khoo C, Shah T, Bass E, Lee HJ, Ahmad S, Noureldin M, Joshi S, Pegers E, Wong K, Tam H, Hrouda D, Winkler M, Gordon S, Qazi H, Ahmed Het al., 2022, Assessing the regional variability of a pre-biopsy mpMRI and targeted prostate cancer diagnostic pathway, Publisher: ELSEVIER, Pages: S672-S673, ISSN: 0302-2838

Conference paper

Brembilla G, Giganti F, Sidhu H, Imbriaco M, Mallett S, Stabile A, Freeman A, Ahmed HU, Moore C, Emberton M, Punwani Set al., 2022, Diagnostic accuracy of abbreviated Bi-parametric MRI (a-bpMRI) for prostate cancer detection and screening: a multi-reader study, Diagnostics, Vol: 12, Pages: 1-10, ISSN: 2075-4418

(1) Background: There is currently limited evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of abbreviated biparametric MRI (a-bpMRI) protocols for prostate cancer (PCa) detection and screening. In the present study, we aim to investigate the performance of a-bpMRI among multiple readers and its potential application to an imaging-based screening setting. (2) Methods: A total of 151 men who underwent 3T multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate and transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies were retrospectively selected. Corresponding bpMRI (multiplanar T2WI, DWI, ADC maps) and a-bpMRI (axial T2WI and b 2000 s/mm2 DWI only) dataset were derived from mpMRI. Three experienced radiologists scored a-bpMRI, standard biparametric MRI (bpMRI) and mpMRI in separate sessions. Diagnostic accuracy and interreader agreement of a-bpMRI was tested for different positivity thresholds and compared to bpMRI and mpMRI. Predictive values of a-bpMRI were computed for lower levels of PCa prevalence to simulate a screening setting. The primary definition of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was Gleason ≥ 4 + 3, or cancer core length ≥ 6 mm. (3) Results: The median age was 62 years, the median PSA was 6.8 ng/mL, and the csPCa prevalence was 40%. Using a cut off of MRI score ≥ 3, the sensitivity and specificity of a-bpMRI were 92% and 48%, respectively. There was no significant difference in sensitivity compared to bpMRI and mpMRI. Interreader agreement of a-bpMRI was moderate (AC1 0.58). For a low prevalence of csPCa (e.g., <10%), higher cut offs (MRI score ≥ 4) yield a more favourable balance between the predictive values and positivity rate of MRI. (4) Conclusion: Abbreviated bpMRI protocols could match the diagnostic accuracy of bpMRI and mpMRI for the detection of csPCa. If a-bpMRI is used in low-prevalence settings, higher cut-offs for MRI positivity should be prioritised.

Journal article

Bass EJ, Tanaka BM, Connor MJ, Walters U, Eldred-Evans D, Sarkar P, Hosking-Jervis F, Bhola-Stewart H, Pegers E, Powell L, Leelamany D, Wong K, Ahmad S, Tam H, Qazi H, Gordon S, Hrouda D, Mccracken S, Winkler M, Ahmed HUet al., 2022, A prospective blinded validation of the rapid prostate cancer risk calculator for patients following initial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, Publisher: ELSEVIER, Pages: S677-S677, ISSN: 0302-2838

Conference paper

Connor MJ, Eldred-Evans D, Tam H, Sokhi H, Padhani AR, Price D, Gammon M, Klimowska-Nassar N, Burak P, Day E, Winkler M, Fiorentino F, Ahmed HUet al., 2022, An evaluation of screening pathways using a combination of MRI and PSA: Results from the IP1-PROSTAGRAM study, Publisher: ELSEVIER, Pages: S552-S553, ISSN: 0302-2838

Conference paper

Torres M C, Morote J, Pye H, Athanasiou A, Celma A, Regis L, Planas J, Santamaria A, Trilla E, Schiess R, Punwani S, Whitaker H, Ahmed HU, Emberton Met al., 2022, Proclarix aids in resolving indeterminate multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging for the improved diagnosis of prostate cancer, Publisher: ELSEVIER, Pages: S727-S728, ISSN: 0302-2838

Conference paper

Connor MJ, Genie MG, Burns D, Bass EJ, Gonzalez M, Sarwar N, Falconer A, Mangar S, Dudderidge T, Khoo V, Winkler M, Ahmed HU, Watson Vet al., 2022, A systematic review of patients' values, preferences, and expectations for the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer, European Urology Open Science, Vol: 36, Pages: 9-18, ISSN: 2666-1683

Context: Advances in systemic agents have increased overall survival for men diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer. Additional cytoreductive prostate treatments and metastasis-directed therapies are under evaluation. These confer toxicity but may offer incremental survival benefits. Thus, an understanding of patients' values and treatment preferences is important for counselling, decision-making, and guideline development. Objective: To perform a systematic review of patients' values, preferences, and expectations regarding treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. Evidence acquisition: The MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases were systematically searched for qualitative and preference elucidation studies reporting on patients' preferences for treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) or GRADE Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual). The protocol was registered on PROSPERO as CRD42020201420. Evidence synthesis: A total of 1491 participants from 15 studies met the prespecified eligibility for inclusion. The study designs included were discrete choice experiments (n = 5), mixed methods (n = 3), and qualitative methods (n = 7). Disease states reported per study were: metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in nine studies (60.0%), metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in two studies (13.3%), and a mixed cohort in four studies (26.6%). In quantitative preference elicitation studies, patients consistently valued treatment effectiveness and delay in time to symptoms as the two top-ranked treatment attributes (low or very low certainty). Patients were willing to trade off treatment-related toxicity for potential oncological benefits (low certainty). In qualitative studies, thematic analysis revealed cancer progression and/or survival, pain, and fatigue as key components in treatment decisions (low or very low

Journal article

James C, Brunckhorst O, Fanshawe J, Hammadeh M, Sheriff M, Thomas R, Williams M, Khan S, Ahmed H, Van Hemelrijck M, Stewart R, Dasgupta P, Ahmed Ket al., 2022, Evaluating the baseline mental wellbeing of newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients, Publisher: ELSEVIER, Pages: S414-S414, ISSN: 0302-2838

Conference paper

Bass EJ, Tanaka BM, Connor MJ, Walters U, Eldred-Evans D, Sarkar P, Hosking-Jervis F, Bhola-Stewart H, Pegers E, Powell L, Leelamany D, Wong K, Ahmad S, Tam H, Gordon S, Hrouda D, Mccracken S, Winkler M, Ahmed HUet al., 2022, Identifying men affected by changes in PSA screening in the COVID-19 pandemic, Publisher: ELSEVIER, Pages: S573-S573, ISSN: 0302-2838

Conference paper

This data is extracted from the Web of Science and reproduced under a licence from Thomson Reuters. You may not copy or re-distribute this data in whole or in part without the written consent of the Science business of Thomson Reuters.

Request URL: http://wlsprd.imperial.ac.uk:80/respub/WEB-INF/jsp/search-html.jsp Request URI: /respub/WEB-INF/jsp/search-html.jsp Query String: respub-action=search.html&id=00936994&limit=30&person=true