Authors

Main Content

Top Content

Directory of Authors from the Journal and their last article.

Tatyana A ShamliyanView Articles

Volume 11, Number 3Review Articles

Male Urinary Incontinence: Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Preventive Interventions

Systematic Review

Tatyana A ShamliyanJean F WymanRyan PingTimothy J WiltRobert L Kane

Urinary incontinence (UI) in community-dwelling men affects quality of lifeand increases the risk of institutionalization. Observational studies and randomized,controlled trials published in English from 1990 to November 2007on the epidemiology and prevention of UI were identified in several databasesto abstract rates and adjusted odds ratios (OR) of incontinence, calculateabsolute risk difference (ARD) after clinical interventions, and synthesizeevidence with random-effects models. Of 1083 articles identified, 126 wereeligible for analysis. Pooled prevalence of UI increased with age to 21% to32% in elderly men. Poor general health, comorbidities, severe physicallimitations, cognitive impairment, stroke (pooled OR 1.54; 95% confidenceinterval [CI], 1.14-2.1), urinary tract infections (pooled OR 3.49; 95%CI, 2.33-5.23), prostate diseases, and diabetes (pooled OR 1.36; 95% CI,1.14-1.61) were associated with UI. Treatment with tolterodine alone (ARD0.17; 95% CI, 0.02-0.32) or combined with tamsulosin (ARD 0.17; 95% CI,0.08-0.25) resulted in greater self-reported benefit compared with placebo.Radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer compared withwatchful waiting increased UI. Short-term prevention of UI with pelvic floormuscle rehabilitation after prostatectomy was not consistently seen acrossrandomized, controlled trials. The prevalence of incontinence increased with ageand functional dependency. Stroke, diabetes, poor general health, radiation, andsurgery for prostate cancer were associated with UI in community-dwellingmen. Men reported overall benefit from drug treatments. Limited evidence ofpreventive effects of pelvic floor rehabilitation requires future investigation.[Rev Urol. 2009;11(3):145-165 doi:10.3909/riu0416]© 2009 MedReviews, LLC

Risk factorsUrinary incontinenceRehabilitationDrug therapy

Theresa A GuiseView 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

Thomas E MoodyView Articles

Volume 19, Number 2Review Articles

The American Urological Association’s Prostate Cancer Screening Guideline: Which Cancers Will Be Missed in Average-risk Men Aged 40 to 54 Years?

Cancer Screening Update

Thomas E MoodyCurtis L SpraitzarElizabeth EisenhartScott Tully Jr

To determine the impact of the American Urological Association’s (AUA) guideline for early detection of prostate cancer that recommends against routine screening in men aged 40 to 54 years at average risk (eg, white men without a family history of prostate cancer), we undertook a study of 973 men who previously underwent a prostate biopsy at Urology Centers of Alabama (UCA) over the 5-year period from 2010 to 2014. We retrospectively reviewed the results of the prostate biopsies performed by urologists at UCA—and, where applicable, the final surgical pathology results and compared the results by race and family history. In white men with a family history of prostate cancer, 47% had cancer and 30% had Gleason score (GS) ≥ 7 disease. In white men without a family history of prostate cancer, 32% had cancer and 23% had GS ≥ 7 disease. By comparison, in African American men with a family history of prostate cancer, 56% had cancer and 42% had GS ≥ 7 disease. In African American men without a family history, 42% had cancer and 29% had GS ≥ 7 disease. In our study, 144 of 456 (32%) of the group of average-risk men had cancer and 105 of 456 (23%) had GS ≥ 7 cancer. Had the AUA guidelines been followed, these cancers would have been missed or the diagnoses delayed. [Rev Urol. 2017;19(2):106–112 doi: 10.3909/riu0748] © 2017 MedReviews®, LLC

Prostate cancerProstate-specific antigenAUA screening guidelineAverage-risk men