2019
Pathological Findings and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Concordance at Salvage Radical Prostatectomy for Local Recurrence following Partial Ablation Using High Intensity Focused Ultrasound.
Thompson J, Sridhar A, Tan W, Freeman A, Haider A, Allen C, Moore C, Orczyk C, Mazzon G, Khetrapal P, Shaw G, Rajan P, Mohammed A, Briggs T, Nathan S, Kelly J, Sooriakumaran P. Pathological Findings and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Concordance at Salvage Radical Prostatectomy for Local Recurrence following Partial Ablation Using High Intensity Focused Ultrasound. Journal Of Urology 2019, 201: 1134-1143. PMID: 30730409, DOI: 10.1097/ju.0000000000000135.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsSalvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomyRobot-assisted radical prostatectomyPositive surgical marginsSalvage prostatectomyRadical prostatectomySensitivity of magnetic resonance imagingField recurrenceMagnetic resonance imagingInfield recurrenceSurgical marginsHigher risk of positive surgical marginsGleason 3+3 diseasePrimary robotic assisted radical prostatectomyRisk of positive surgical marginsMagnetic resonance imaging concordancePositive surgical margin ratePartial ablationSalvage radical prostatectomyMagnetic resonance imaging sensitivityResonance imagingSurgical margin rateRisk of recurrenceCharacteristics of recurrenceProstatectomy histopathologyHigh-intensity focused ultrasoundMixed‐methods approach to exploring patients’ perspectives on the acceptability of a urinary biomarker test in replacing cystoscopy for bladder cancer surveillance
Tan W, Teo C, Chan D, Heinrich M, Feber A, Sarpong R, Allan J, Williams N, Brew‐Graves C, Ng C, Kelly J, Khetrapal P, ridhar A, Baker H, Ocampo F, Whotton N, Dent K, Pearson S, Hatton J, Newton M, Heeney E, Green K, Evans S, Rogers M, Dann A, Cook J, Cornwell M, Mills R, Knight H, Maher S, Rane A, Thomas S, Reyner S, Vallejera G, Adeniran P, Masood S, Ridgway S, Coulding M, Savill H, Mccormick J, Clark M, Collins G, Jewers K, Keith S, Bowen G, Hargreaves J, Riley K, Srirangam S, Mistry R, Chadwick J, Cocks S, Hull R, Loftus A, Dawson L, Roberts H, Main C, Jain S, Waymont C, Rogers J, Grant A, Carter V, Heap H, Lomas C, Cooke P, Baird Y, Moore S, Greenslade S, Margalef J, Chadbourn I, Harris M, Hicks J, Clitheroe P, Connolly S, Hodgkinson S, Haydock H, inclair A, Storr E, Cogley L, Natale S, Lovegrove W, Smith S, Smith K, Hewitt D, Sriram R, Atkinson K, Royle L, Madine J, MacLean K, Walsh J, Guerdette M, Hill M, Payne D, Power A, Cannon J, Devereaux L, Thompson A, Scarratt L, Hodgkiss T, Johnstone D, Johnson J, Allsop J, Rothwell J, Connolly K, Cherian J, Wardle H, Wilson D, Bayles A, Pelluri S, Pati J, Gherman A, Scott C, Madaan S, Taylor A, Edmunds E, Moore J, Rees A, Williams S, Caddy S, Dukes S, Goffe A, Buckhorn K, Nichols L, Acher P, Baillie K, Middleton K, Proctor C, Cresswell J, Chilvers A, Cain M, Vaux A, Watson D, Bradfield S, Gregory H, Mostafid H, Kehoe L, Drakeley S, Davies A, Williamson L, Krishnan R, Lunt N, Hill P, Burns H, Townley B, Wilkinson L, Wassall H, Hunt J, Holbrook B, Stancombe L, Morrison J, Vankoutrik L, Misra S, Fossey G, Richards A, Mcdonald K, Henderson A, Fennelly R, Tribbeck M, Ames K, Borwell J, Kotze M, Beesley K, Rennie K, Porter T, Gipson A, Piper L, Bailey L, Chrisopoulou A, Slevin K, McCartin F, Warburton H, Hathaway‐Lees S, Whetton K, Delves G, Day A, Bankole T, Broadhead S, Malde S, Oblak M, Ellis D, Bishara S, Barias‐Lara T, Donkov I, Thatcher H, Morris M, Culmsee C, Menzies H, Bartlett C, Cutting C, O'Brien N, Jannapureddy R, Kelkar A, Fitzgerald J, Longhurst S, Worth C, Peracha M, Mzazi S, Poile C, Griffiths L, Cook A, Barber N, Brar N, lty A, Zelhof B, Blades R. Mixed‐methods approach to exploring patients’ perspectives on the acceptability of a urinary biomarker test in replacing cystoscopy for bladder cancer surveillance. BJU International 2019, 124: 408-417. PMID: 30694612, PMCID: PMC6767410, DOI: 10.1111/bju.14690.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsMinimally acceptable sensitivityAdverse eventsMixed-methods approachUrine biomarkersUrinary biomarkersProspective multicentre observational studyUrinary biomarker testsUrinary tract symptomsHome to hospitalAssociated with adverse eventsUrinary tract infectionHigh-risk patientsMulticentre observational studySensitivity of cystoscopyBladder cancer surveillanceDiagnosis of cancerSemi-structured interviewsPrevalence of haematuriaPatient experiencePatient perspectivePatients' viewsCancer surveillanceTract infectionsUrine biomarker studiesPatient demographicsDevelopment and validation of a haematuria cancer risk score to identify patients at risk of harbouring cancer
Tan W, Ahmad A, Feber A, Mostafid H, Cresswell J, Fankhauser C, Waisbrod S, Hermanns T, Sasieni P, Kelly J, Khetrapal P, Baker H, Sridhar A, Lamb B, Ocampo F, McBain H, Baillie K, Middleton K, Watson D, Knight H, Maher S, Rane A, Pathmanathan B, Harmathova A, Hellawell G, Pelluri S, Pati J, Cossons A, Scott C, Madaan S, Bradfield S, Wakeford N, Dann A, Cook J, Cornwell M, Mills R, Thomas S, Reyner S, Vallejera G, Adeniran P, Masood S, Whotton N, Dent K, Pearson S, Hatton J, Newton M, Heeney E, Green K, Evans S, Rogers M, Gupwell K, Whiteley S, Brown A, McGrath J, Lunt N, Hill P, Sinclair A, Paredes‐Guerra A, Holbrook B, Ong E, Wardle H, Wilson D, Bayles A, Fennelly R, Tribbeck M, Ames K, Davies M, Taylor J, Edmunds E, Moore J, Mckinley S, Nolan T, Speed A, Tunnicliff A, Fossey G, Williams A, George M, Hutchins I, Einosas R, Richards A, Henderson A, Appleby B, Kehoe L, Gladwell L, Drakeley S, Davies J, Krishnan R, Roberts H, Main C, Jain S, Dumville J, Wilkinson N, Taylor J, Thomas F, Goulden K, Vinod C, Green E, Waymont C, Rogers J, Grant A, Carter V, Heap H, Lomas C, Cooke P, Scarratt L, Hodgkiss T, Johnstone D, Johnson J, Allsop J, Rothwell J, Connolly K, Cherian J, Ridgway S, Coulding M, Savill H, Mccormick J, Clark M, Collins G, Jewers K, Keith S, Bowen G, Hargreaves J, Riley K, Srirangam S, Rees A, Williams S, Dukes S, Goffe A, Dawson L, Mistry R, Chadwick J, Cocks S, Hull R, Loftus A, Baird Y, Moore S, Greenslade S, Margalef J, Chadbourn I, Harris M, Hicks J, Clitheroe P, Connolly S, Hodgkinson S, Haydock H, Sinclair A, Storr E, Cogley L, Natale S, Lovegrove W, Slack K, Nash D, Smith K, Walsh J, Guerdette A, Hill M, Payne D, Taylor B, Sinclair E, Perry M, Debbarma M, Hewitt D, Sriram R, Power A, Cannon J, Devereaux L, Thompson A, Atkinson K, Royle L, Madine J, MacLean K, Sarpong R, Brew‐Graves C, Williams N. Development and validation of a haematuria cancer risk score to identify patients at risk of harbouring cancer. Journal Of Internal Medicine 2019, 285: 436-445. PMID: 30521125, PMCID: PMC6446724, DOI: 10.1111/joim.12868.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsCancer risk scoreNational Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelinesRisk scoreInvestigation of haematuriaPhysician decision-makingAge-specific thresholdsValidation cohortExcellence guidelinesUK hospitalsAmerican Urological Association guidelinesNational guidelinesImprove patientNo significant overfittingImprove patient selectionUpper tract cancerLack of consensusAssociation guidelinesSmoking historySwiss patientsCohortPatient ageDevelopment cohortPatient selectionGuidelinesHaematuria
2018
Can Renal and Bladder Ultrasound Replace Computerized Tomography Urogram in Patients Investigated for Microscopic Hematuria?
Tan W, Sarpong R, Khetrapal P, Rodney S, Mostafid H, Cresswell J, Hicks J, Rane A, Henderson A, Watson D, Cherian J, Williams N, Brew-Graves C, Feber A, Kelly J, Collaborators D. Can Renal and Bladder Ultrasound Replace Computerized Tomography Urogram in Patients Investigated for Microscopic Hematuria? Journal Of Urology 2018, 200: 973-980. PMID: 29702097, PMCID: PMC6179963, DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.04.065.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsUpper tract urothelial cancerComputerized tomography urogramBladder ultrasoundIncidence of bladderUrinary tract cancerMicroscopic hematuriaUrothelial cancerBladder cancerIncidence of upper tract urothelial cancerIncidence of urinary tract cancerRenal calculiPredictive valueUpper tract imagingDetecting bladder cancerNegative predictive valueDetect renal cancerDiagnosed bladder cancerPositive predictive valueSuspected renal calculiHematuria casesMacroscopic hematuriaRenal cancerHematuriaInvestigated patientsCystoscopy
2015
Is Prebiopsy MRI Good Enough to Avoid Prostate Biopsy? A Cohort Study Over a 1-Year Period
Lamb B, Tan W, Rehman A, Nessa A, Cohen D, O'Neil J, Green J, Hines J. Is Prebiopsy MRI Good Enough to Avoid Prostate Biopsy? A Cohort Study Over a 1-Year Period. Clinical Genitourinary Cancer 2015, 13: 512-517. PMID: 26231912, DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2015.06.007.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchMeSH KeywordsAgedBiopsy, NeedleCohort StudiesHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedProstatic NeoplasmsSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonography, InterventionalConceptsMultiparametric magnetic resonance imagingPrebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imagingNational Comprehensive Cancer NetworkProstate multiparametric magnetic resonance imagingTransrectal ultrasound prostate biopsySignificant prostate cancerTransrectal ultrasound biopsyProstate biopsyTransrectal ultrasoundProstate cancerNational Comprehensive Cancer Network high-riskSensitivity of multiparametric magnetic resonance imagingDetect clinically significant prostate cancerSystematic 12-core prostate biopsyClinically significant prostate cancerMRI scansPredictive valueNegative MRI scansGleason score 8High-risk diseasePositive MRI scansNegative predictive valuePositive predictive valueComprehensive Cancer NetworkRisk of complications