Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Item Type
      Item Type
      Clear All
      Item Type
  • Subject
      Subject
      Clear All
      Subject
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
3 result(s) for "Samora, Nathan L."
Sort by:
Association between body mass index and localized prostate cancer management and disease‐specific quality of life
Purpose The purpose of this work is to describe the association between body mass index (BMI) and (1) management option for localized prostate cancer (PCa) and (2) disease‐specific quality of life (ds‐QoL) after treatment or active surveillance. Subjects/patients and methods We analysed data from men with localized PCa managed with radical prostatectomy (RP), radiation therapy (RT), or active surveillance (AS) in a prospective, population‐based cohort study. We evaluated the association between BMI and management option with multivariable multinomial logistic regression analysis. The association between BMI and ds‐QoL was assessed using multivariable longitudinal linear regression. Regression models were adjusted for baseline domain scores, demographics, and clinicopathologic characteristics. Results A total of 2378 men were included (medians [quartiles]: age 64 [59–69] years; BMI 27 kg/m2; 77% were non‐Hispanic white); 29% were obese (BMI ≥ 30). Accounting for demographic and clinicopathologic features, BMI ≥ 28 kg/m2 was inversely associated with the likelihood of receiving RP (compared with RT) and became statistically significant at BMI ≥ 33 kg/m2 (maximum adjusted relative risk ratio = 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.95, p = 0.013 for BMI ≥ 33 vs. 25). Conversely, BMI was not significantly associated with the likelihood of receiving AS compared with RT. After stratification by management option, obese men who underwent definitive treatment were not found to have clinically worse ds‐QoL. Obese men initially on AS appeared to have worse urinary incontinence than nonobese men, but this was not significant on an as‐treated sensitivity analysis. Conclusions Among men with localized PCa, those with BMI ≥ 33 kg/m2 were less likely to receive surgery than radiation. Obesity was not associated with ds‐QoL in men undergoing definitive treatment, nor in men who remained on AS.
MyProstateScore in men considering repeat biopsy: validation of a simple testing approach
BackgroundMen with persistent risk of Grade Group (GG) ≥ 2 cancer after a negative biopsy present a unique clinical challenge. The validated MyProstateScore test is clinically-available for pre-biopsy risk stratification. In biopsy-naïve patients, we recently validated a straightforward testing approach to rule-out GG ≥ 2 cancer with 98% negative predictive value (NPV) and 97% sensitivity. In the current study, we established a practical MPS-based testing approach in men with a previous negative biopsy being considered for repeat biopsy.MethodsPatients provided post-digital rectal examination urine prior to repeat biopsy. MyProstateScore was calculated using the validated, locked model including urinary PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG scores with serum PSA. In a clinically-appropriate primary (i.e., training) cohort, we identified a lower (rule-out) threshold approximating 90% sensitivity and an upper (rule-in) threshold approximating 80% specificity for GG ≥ 2 cancer. These thresholds were applied to an external validation cohort, and performance measures and clinical outcomes associated with their use were calculated.ResultsMyProstateScore thresholds of 15 and 40 met pre-defined performance criteria in the primary cohort (422 patients; median PSA 6.4, IQR 4.3–9.1). In the 268-patient validation cohort, 25 men (9.3%) had GG ≥ 2 cancer on repeat biopsy. The rule-out threshold of 15 provided 100% NPV and sensitivity for GG ≥ 2 cancer and would have prevented 23% of unnecessary biopsies. Use of MyProstateScore >40 to rule-in biopsy would have prevented 67% of biopsies while maintaining 95% NPV. In the validation cohort, the prevalence of GG ≥ 2 cancer was 0% for MyProstateScore 0–15, 6.5% for MyProstateScore 15–40, and 19% for MyProstateScore >40.ConclusionsIn patients who previously underwent a negative prostate biopsy, the MyProstateScore values of 15 and 40 yielded clinically-actionable rule-in and rule-out risk groups. Using this straightforward testing approach, MyProstateScore can meaningfully inform patients and physicians weighing the need for repeat biopsy.