Authors

Main Content

Top Content

Directory of Authors from the Journal and their last article.

Dean AssimosView Articles

Volume 20, Number 1Review Articles

Factors Associated With Postoperative Infection After Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

Risk Factor Analysis

Win Shun LaiDean Assimos

Numerous studies have investigated risk factors for the development of postoperative infection in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) patients. Herein, we describe our meta-analysis of the risk factors for the prediction of post-PCNL infectious complications. We searched electronic databases using a combination of the terms percutaneous nephrolithotomy, risk factors, infection, and sepsis. The primary outcome was post-PCNL infection as defined by fever greater than 38°C or sepsis as defined by the Sepsis Consensus Definition Committee. Risk factors for infection in each study were identified and included for analysis if present in at least two studies. We used quantitative effect sizes in odds ratio to assess each endpoint. After application of criteria, 24 studies were found, of which 12 were prospective and 12 were retrospective. Of the prospective studies, preoperative urine culture, renal pelvis culture, stone culture, number of access points, hydronephrosis, perioperative blood transfusion, and struvite stone composition were found to be significantly associated with postoperative infection. Of the 12 retrospective studies, preoperative urine culture, stone cultures, number of access points, blood transfusion, stone size, and staghorn formation were associated with infection. Preoperative urine culture, stone culture, number of access points, and need for blood transfusion were consistently found to be significant factors. This indicates that the presence of bacteria in the urine/stone preoperatively as well as the amount of trauma the kidney sustains during the procedure are major predictors of postoperative infection. [Rev Urol. 2018;20(1):7–11 doi: 10.3909/riu0778] © 2018 MedReviews®, LLC

Urinary tract infectionNephrolithiasisLithotripsyPercutaneous nephrostomy

Deborah A KaminskyView Articles

Volume 8, Supplement 1Review Articles

Fused Radioimmunoscintigraphy for Treatment Planning

Prostate Cancer Imaging

Rodney J EllisDeborah A Kaminsky

Advances in imaging technologies, including computerized tomography (CT) and single-photon emission tomography (SPECT), are improving the role of imaging in prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. Hybrid (SPECT/CT) imaging, in particular, shows an increased sensitivity for identification of prostate cancer. Published studies have also recently proposed a new paradigm in the administration of radiation therapy for prostate cancer, favoring doseescalation strategies to improve tumor control for localized disease. Conventional dose-escalation protocols have previously relied primarily on margin extension to the entire prostate gland to achieve dose-escalation; extending increased risk to radiosensitive normal structures. A newer strategy proposes use of advanced imaging to confine dose-escalation to biological target volumes identified on capromab pendetide SPECT/CT-fused image sets or imageguided radiation therapy (IGRT). This strategy defines a shift in radiation dosimetry and planning from uniform glandular prescription dosing with doseescalation applied generically to the peripheral regions and margin extension; to dose-escalation confinement to discrete regions of known disease as defined by focal uptake on radioimmunoscintigraphy fusion with anatomic image sets, with minimal margin extension. The introduction of advanced imaging for IGRT in prostate cancer has also introduced an improved capability for the early-identification of patients at risk for metastatic disease, where more aggressive therapeutic interventions may prove beneficial. [Rev Urol. 2006;8(suppl 1):S11-S19]

Prostate cancerRadiotherapyBrachytherapyProstaScintSPECT/CTBiological targetvolumesSurvival

Deepak A KapoorView Articles

Volume 15, Number 4Original Research

Utilization Trends and Positive Biopsy Rates for Prostate Biopsies in the United States: 2005 to 2011

Deepak A KapoorAnn E AndersonCarl A OlssonSavvas E MendrinosDavid G Bostwick

This article assesses the positive biopsy rate and core sampling pattern in patients undergoing needle biopsy of the prostate in the United States at a national reference laboratory (NRL) and anatomic pathology laboratories integrated into urology group practices, and analyzes the relationship between positive biopsy rates and the number of specimen vials per biopsy. For the years 2005 to 2011 we collected pathology data from an NRL, including number of urologists and urology practices referring samples, total specimen vials submitted for prostate biopsies, and final pathologic diagnosis for each case. The diagnoses were categorized as benign, malignant, prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, or atypical small acinar proliferation. Over the same period, similar data were gathered from urology practices with in-house laboratories performing global pathology services (urology practice laboratories; UPLs) as identified by a survey of members of the Large Urology Group Practice Association. For each year studied, positive biopsy rate and number of specimen vials per biopsy were calculated in aggregate and separately for each site of service. From 2005 to 2011, 437,937 biopsies were submitted in . 4.23 million vials (9.4 specimen vials/biopsy); overall positive biopsy rate was 40.3%—this was identical at both the NRL and UPL (P 5 .97). Nationally, the number of specimen vials per biopsy increased sharply from a mean of 8.8 during 2005 to 2008 to a mean of 10.3 from 2009 to 2011 (difference, 1.5 specimen vials/biopsy; P 5 .03). For the most recent 3-year period (2009-2011), the difference of 0.6 specimen vials per biopsy between the NRL (10.0) and UPL (10.6) was not significant (P 5 0.08). Positive biopsy rate correlated strongly (P , .01) with number of specimen vials per biopsy. The positive prostate biopsy rate is 40.3% and is identical across sites of service. Although there was a national trend toward increased specimen vials per biopsy from 2005 to 2011, from 2009 to 2011 there was no significant difference in specimen vials per biopsy across sites of service. Increased cancer detection rate correlated significantly with increased number of specimens examined. Segregation of prostate biopsy cores into 10 to 12 unique specimen vials has been widely adopted by urologists across sites of service. [Rev Urol. 2013;15(4):137-144 doi: 10.3909/riu0600] © 2014 MedReviews®, LLC

Prostate cancerProstate biopsyUtilization trendsNational reference laboratory

Deepak KapoorView Articles

Volume 20, Number 3Original Research

Histologic Changes in Prostate Cancer Detected Subsequent to the 2012 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Prostate Cancer Screening Recommendation

Ann E AndersonCarl A OlssonHugh J LaveryDeepak Kapoor

We report changes in the histopathology of prostate cancer diagnosed in a large urology group practice after the final United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Grade D recommendation against prostate-specific antigen screening. All prostate biopsies performed from 2011 through 2015 in a large urology group practice were retrospectively reviewed; 2012 was excluded as a transition year. The changes in biopsy data in years following the USPSTF decision (2013-2015) were then compared with baseline (2011). A total of 10,944 biopsies were evaluated during the study period. Positive biopsy rates rose from 39.1% at baseline to 45.2% in 2015 (P < 0.01) with a marked shift toward more aggressive cancer throughout the study period. The absolute number of patients presenting with Gleason Grade Group 4 or 5 increased from 155/year at baseline to 231, 297, and 285 in 2013, 2014, and 2015, respectively (P < 0.05), unrelated to age or racial changes over time. Black men represented 16% of the cohort. Since the USPSTF recommendation against prostate cancer screening, trends toward a substantial upward grade migration and increased volume of cancers were noted in a cohort of nearly 11,000 patients in a real- world clinical practice. Additionally, continuing reductions in cancer detection in the United States may exacerbate these trends. [Rev Urol. 2018;20(3):125–130 doi: 10.3909/riu0815] © 2018 MedReviews®, LLC

Prostate cancerProstate cancer screeningHistopathologygrade migration

Deepansh DalelaView Articles

Volume 18, Number 1Review Articles

Contemporary Role of the Decipher® Test in Prostate Cancer Management: Current Practice and Future Perspectives

Management Update

Deepansh DalelaBjörn LöppenbergAkshay SoodJesse SammonFiras Abdollah

We performed a systematic literature search to identify original articles and editorials about the Decipher® Prostate Cancer Test (GenomeDx Biosciences, San Diego, CA) to provide an overview of the current literature and its present role in urologic clinical practice. The Decipher test, which uses the expression of 22 selected RNA markers (from a total of over 1.4 million), showed a very high discrimination in predicting clinical metastasis (0.75-0.83) and cancer-specific mortality (0.78) in external validation studies, outperforming all routinely available clinicopathologic characteristics. Further, the timing of postoperative radiotherapy (adjuvant vs salvage) may be guided based on Decipher scores. The Decipher test was also the only independent predictor of clinical metastasis in patients with biochemical recurrence after surgery. The Decipher Genomic Resource Information Database (GRID) is a novel research tool that captures 1.4 million marker expressions per patient and may facilitate precision-guided, individualized care to patients with prostate cancer. In this era of precision medicine, Decipher, along with the Decipher GRID platform, is a promising genomic tool that may aid in managing prostate cancer patients throughout the continuum of care and delivering appropriate treatment at an individualized level. [Rev Urol. 2016;18(1):1-9 doi: 10.3909/riu0706] © 2016 MedReviews®, LLC

Prostate cancerDecipher® Prostate Cancer TestGenomic classifierNeoplasm recurrenceLocal/surgeryTreatment outcome