Authors

Main Content

Top Content

Directory of Authors from the Journal and their last article.

Michael G OefeleinView Articles

Volume 9, Number 4Review Articles

Estrogenic Side Effects of Androgen Deprivation Therapy

Treatment Update

Michael S CooksonJames A EasthamTheresa A GuiseMichael G OefeleinMatthew R SmithCelestia Higano

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is part of standard therapy for locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer and is frequently used in men with a rising prostate-specific antigen following radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. In some men, ADT may be administered for years or even decades. The intended therapeutic effect of ADT is testosterone deficiency. Because estrogen is a normal metabolite of testosterone, ADT also results in estrogen deficiency. ADT has a variety of adverse effects, many of which are primarily related to estrogen deficiency. Bone mineral density may decrease by 4% to 13% per year in men receiving ADT. The fracture rate for patients on ADT averages 5% to 8% per year of therapy. Hot flashes, gynecomastia, and breast tenderness are common side effects associated with ADT. In the clinic, minimum baseline testing should include weight measurement, blood pressure reading, and fasting lipid panel and serum glucose tests. Currently, there are no large outcome trials in men on ADT testing the available therapies for adverse effects. No therapies are specifically approved for treatment of adverse effects in men on ADT. Although some therapies can be used for a single indication (based upon small studies), there is currently no agent to treat the multiple estrogenic side effects of ADT. [Rev Urol. 2007;9(4):163-180]

Androgen deprivation therapyCardiovascular diseaseGynecomastiaOsteoporosis fractureMale hot flashes

Michael J ConsoloView Articles

Volume 18, Number 4Review Articles

Barriers to Accessing Urethroplasty

Treatment Update

David O SussmanGordon A BrownMichael J ConsoloKirin K SyedChristopher RobisonJacob McFaddenDavid I ShalowitzBradley D Figler

Urethroplasty is an effective treatment for men with anterior urethral strictures, but is utilized less frequently than ineffective treatments such as internal urethrotomy. We sought to identify provider-level barriers to urethroplasty. An anonymous online survey was emailed to all Mid-Atlantic American Urological Association members. Six scenarios in which urethroplasty was the most appropriate treatment were presented. Primary outcome was recommendation for urethroplasty in ≥ three clinical scenarios. Other factors measured include practice zip code, urethroplasty training, and proximity to a urethroplasty surgeon. Multivariate logistic regression identified factors associated with increased likelihood of urethroplasty recommendation. Of 670 members emailed, 109 (16%) completed the survey. Final analysis included 88 respondents. Mean years in practice was 17.2. Most respondents received formal training in urethroplasty: 43 (49%) in residency, 5 (6%) in fellowship, and 10 (11%) in both; 48 respondents (55%) had a urethroplasty surgeon in their practice, whereas 18 (20%) had a urethroplasty surgeon within 45 minutes of his or her primary practice location. The only covariate that was associated with an increased likelihood of recommending urethroplasty in ≥ three scenarios was formal urethroplasty training. Most members (68%) reported no barriers to referring patients for urethroplasty; the most common barriers cited were long distance to urethroplasty surgeon (n = 13, 15%) and concern about complications (n = 8, 9%). Urethroplasty continues to be underutilized in men with anterior urethral strictures, potentially due to lack of knowledge dissemination and access to a urethroplasty surgeon. Appropriate urethroplasty utilization may increase with greater exposure to urethroplasty in training. [Rev Urol. 2016;18(4):188-193 doi: 10.3909/riu0731] © 2016 MedReviews®, LLC

UrethroplastyUrethral stricturesBarriersPhysician practice patterns

Michael J KemeterView Articles

Volume 16, Number 4Review Articles

A Guide for Clinicians in the Evaluation of Emerging Molecular Diagnostics for Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer

Diagnosis Update

Michael J KemeterPhillip G FebboSteven E CanfieldAdam S KibelH Jeffrey LawrenceJudd W Moul

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is associated with a decline in prostate cancerrelated mortality. However, screening has also led to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of clinically insignificant tumors. Recently, certain national guidelines (eg, US Preventive Services Task Force) have recommended against PSA screening, which may lead to a reverse-stage migration. Although many prostate tumors are indolent at presentation, others are aggressive and are appropriate targets for treatment interventions. Utilization of molecular markers may improve our ability to measure tumor biology and allow better discrimination of indolent and aggressive tumors at diagnosis. Many emerging commercial molecular diagnostic assays have been designed to provide more accurate risk stratification for newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Unfamiliarity with molecular diagnostics may make it challenging for some clinicians to navigate and interpret the medical literature to ascertain whether particular assays are appropriately developed and validated for clinical use. Herein, the authors provide a framework for practitioners to use when assessing new tissue-based molecular assays. This review outlines aspects of assay development, clinical and analytic validation and clinical utility studies, and regulatory issues, which collectively determine whether tests (1) are actionable for specific clinical indications, (2) measurably influence treatment decisions, and (3) are sufficiently validated to warrant incorporation into clinical practice. [Rev Urol. 2014;16(4):172-180 doi: 10.3909/riu0644] © 2014 MedReviews®, LLC

Prostate cancerBiomarkerClinical utilityGenomic prostate scoreAdverse pathologyClinical validationMolecular diagnostics