Publications
620 results found
Aydin A, Ahmed K, Abe T, et al., 2022, Effect of Simulation-based Training on Surgical Proficiency and Patient Outcomes: A Randomised Controlled Clinical and Educational Trial (vol 81, pg 385, 2022), EUROPEAN UROLOGY, Vol: 82, Pages: E179-E179, ISSN: 0302-2838
Khadhouri S, Gallagher KM, MacKenzie KR, et al., 2022, Developing a Diagnostic Multivariable Prediction Model for Urinary Tract Cancer in Patients Referred with Haematuria: Results from the IDENTIFY Collaborative Study, EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, Vol: 8, Pages: 1673-1682
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 4
Peters M, Eldred-Evans D, Kurver P, et al., 2022, Predicting the Need for Biopsy to Detect Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients with a Magnetic Resonance Imaging- detected Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System/Likert >3 Lesion: Development and Multinational External Validation of the Imperial Rapid Access to Prostate Imaging and Diagnosis Risk Score, EUROPEAN UROLOGY, Vol: 82, Pages: 559-568, ISSN: 0302-2838
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 8
Light A, Ahmed HU, Shah TT, 2022, The unclear role of PET-CT in localized radiorecurrent prostate cancer COMMENT, NATURE REVIEWS UROLOGY, Vol: 19, Pages: 573-574, ISSN: 1759-4812
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 2
Bass E, Pantovic A, Connor M, et 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.
Reddy D, Ahmed HU, 2022, Reply to Francesco Montorsi, Armando Stabile, Elio Mazzone, Giorgio Gandaglia, and Alberto Briganti's Letter to the Editor re: Deepika Reddy, Max Peters, Taimur T. Shah, et al. Cancer Control Outcomes Following Focal Therapy Using High-intensity Focused Ultrasound in 1379 Men with Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: A Multiinstitute 15-year Experience. Eur Urol 2022;81:407-13, EUROPEAN UROLOGY, Vol: 82, Pages: E74-E75, ISSN: 0302-2838
Eldred-Evans D, Burak P, Klimowska-Nassar N, et 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
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 1
Aydin A, Ahmed K, Raison N, et al., 2022, 671 The Effect of Supplementary Simulation-Based Procedural Training: The SIMULATE Randomised Controlled Clinical and Educational Trial, ASiT Surgical Conference, Publisher: OXFORD UNIV PRESS, ISSN: 0007-1323
Grey ADR, Scott R, Shah B, et al., 2022, Re: Multiparametric Ultrasound versus Multiparametric MRI to Diagnose Prostate Cancer (CADMUS): A Prospective, Multicentre, Paired-Cohort, Confirmatory Study Editorial Comment, JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, Vol: 208, Pages: 476-477, ISSN: 0022-5347
Merriel S, Archer S, Forster A, et 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
Brunckhorst O, Liszka J, James C, et al., 2022, O035 Evaluating the mental wellbeing of prostate cancer patients: initial results from the ongoing MIND-P cohort study, Annual Scientific Meeting of the Surgical-Research-Society, Publisher: OXFORD UNIV PRESS, ISSN: 0007-1323
Brazao ES, Ahmed HU, 2022, Liquid Markers Should Precede Imaging in Pre-prostate Biopsy Decision-making: Con, EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, Vol: 8, Pages: 895-896
Reddy D, Dudderidge T, Shah T, et al., 2022, Comparative healthcare research outcomes of novel Surgery in prostate cancer (IP4-CHRONOS): Pilot RCT assessing feasibility of randomization for focal therapy in localized prostate cancer., Annual Meeting of the American-Society-of-Clinical-Oncology (ASCO), Publisher: LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS, ISSN: 0732-183X
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 1
Shah TT, Kanthabalan A, Otieno M, et 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
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 6
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
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 1
Mondal S, Edwards S, Wibowo E, et 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.
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
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 1
Reddy D, Peters M, Shah T, et al., 2022, CANCER CONTROL OUTCOMES FOLLOWING FOCAL THERAPY USING HIFU IN 1,379 MEN WITH NON-METASTATIC PROSTATE CANCER: A MULTI-INSTITUTE 15-YEAR EXPERIENCE, Annual Meeting of the American-Urological-Association (AUA), Publisher: LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS, Pages: E936-E936, ISSN: 0022-5347
Peters M, Eldred-Evans D, Kurver P, et al., 2022, DERIVATION AND EXTERNAL VALIDATION OF A RAPID RISK SCORE FOR PREDICTING CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT PROSTATE CANCER IN MEN WITH AN MRI VISIBLE LESION: A MULTINATIONAL COHORT STUDY, Publisher: LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS, Pages: E336-E336, ISSN: 0022-5347
Peters M, Eldred-Evans D, Connor MJ, et 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
Reddy D, Peters M, Shah T, et al., 2022, FOCAL ABLATIVE SALVAGE THERAPY FOR RADIO-RECURRENT PROSTATE CANCER: 6 YEAR ONCOLOGICAL AND SAFETY OUTCOMES, Publisher: LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS, Pages: E938-E939, ISSN: 0022-5347
Aydin A, Ahmed K, Abe T, et 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
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 14
Reddy D, Peters M, Shah TT, et 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
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 22
Penzkofer T, Padhani AR, Turkbey B, et 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
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 2
Day E, Eldred-Evans D, Prevost AT, et 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
Grey ADR, Scott R, Shah B, et 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
Bakavicius A, Marra G, Macek P, et 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.
Barrett T, Padhani AR, Ahmed HU, et al., 2022, Certification in reporting multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: recommendations of a UK consensus meeting (vol 127, pg 304, 2021), BJU INTERNATIONAL, Vol: 129, Pages: E6-E6, ISSN: 1464-4096
Marsden T, McCartan N, Brown L, et 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.
Connor MJ, Genie MG, Burns D, et 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
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.