LIVIVO - The Search Portal for Life Sciences

zur deutschen Oberfläche wechseln
Advanced search

Your last searches

  1. AU="Lam, Thomas B"
  2. AU="Foerch, Christian"
  3. AU="Buffeteau, Thierry"
  4. AU="Rex, Douglas K"
  5. AU="Atwood, Craig S."
  6. AU="Soulis, Eileen"
  7. AU="Mark A. Schlautman"
  8. AU="Tang, Mitchell" AU="Tang, Mitchell"
  9. AU="Zu, Lingling"
  10. AU=Mac Donald Christine L.
  11. AU="Navascues, Carmen Alvarez"
  12. AU="Chiesi, Francesca"

Search results

Result 1 - 10 of total 78

Search options

  1. Article ; Online: Optimizing the diagnosis of pelvic lymph node metastasis in bladder cancer using computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.

    Lam, Thomas B L

    Cancer communications (London, England)

    2018  Volume 38, Issue 1, Page(s) 2

    MeSH term(s) Humans ; Lymph Nodes ; Lymphatic Metastasis ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed ; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
    Language English
    Publishing date 2018-03-12
    Publishing country United States
    Document type Journal Article ; Comment
    ISSN 2523-3548
    ISSN (online) 2523-3548
    DOI 10.1186/s40880-018-0271-6
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  2. Article ; Online: Prostate Cancer Detection Percentages of Repeat Biopsy in Patients with Positive Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System/Likert 3-5) and Negative Initial Biopsy. A Mini Systematic Review.

    Grivas, Nikolaos / Lardas, Michael / Espinós, Estefania Linares / Lam, Thomas B / Rouviere, Olivier / Mottet, Nicolas / van den Bergh, Roderick C N

    European urology

    2022  Volume 82, Issue 5, Page(s) 452–457

    Abstract: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has high sensitivity but low specificity for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis. The aim of our systematic review was to investigate the proportion of PCa found at a repeat biopsy in patients with a ... ...

    Abstract Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has high sensitivity but low specificity for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis. The aim of our systematic review was to investigate the proportion of PCa found at a repeat biopsy in patients with a negative initial prostate biopsy, despite initial positive mpMRI. Included patients had a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS)/Likert 3-5 lesion on mpMRI prior to the initial mpMRI-targeted prostate biopsy, which was negative for PCa on histology. The main outcomes were the overall and clinically significant PCa (csPCa; International Society of Urological Pathology >1 or any provided definition) percentages at a repeat biopsy. Out of 1179 articles identified, nine studies were included (a total of 485 patients). For patients with PI-RADS 3 lesions, overall and csPCa detection percentages ranged from 0% to 80% and from 0% to 20%, respectively, while for patients with PI-RADS ≥4 lesions, the corresponding percentages were 15.4-86% and 7.7-57%. An overall cancer detection percentage of 87.5% was reported in patients with Likert 5 lesions. Limitation of our review is the small number of studies and the protocol revision that allowed studies with <50 patients. In patients with a positive MRI result and a negative initial MRI-targeted biopsy, we suggest MRI re-reading and follow-up with repeat mpMRI or the standard repeat biopsy in cases at the highest risk. PATIENT SUMMARY: Literature has shown that in men with an abnormal prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan but a normal biopsy, a significant prostate cancer can be present. MRI scans should be double checked, followed by standard checkups or repeat prostate biopsy, especially in highly suspicious cases.
    MeSH term(s) Biopsy ; Humans ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods ; Male ; Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Prostate/diagnostic imaging ; Prostate/pathology ; Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging ; Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology
    Language English
    Publishing date 2022-08-18
    Publishing country Switzerland
    Document type Journal Article ; Systematic Review
    ZDB-ID 193790-x
    ISSN 1873-7560 ; 1421-993X ; 0302-2838
    ISSN (online) 1873-7560 ; 1421-993X
    ISSN 0302-2838
    DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.07.025
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  3. Article ; Online: Re: Neil E. Martin, Laura Massey, Caleb Stowell, et al. Defining a Standard Set of Patient-centered Outcomes for Men with Localized Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol 2015;67:460-7.

    MacLennan, Steven / Williamson, Paula R / Lam, Thomas B

    European urology

    2015  Volume 68, Issue 6, Page(s) e123–4

    MeSH term(s) Health Status ; Health Status Indicators ; Humans ; Male ; Medical Oncology/standards ; Patient-Centered Care/standards ; Process Assessment, Health Care/standards ; Prostatic Neoplasms/therapy ; Quality Indicators, Health Care/standards
    Language English
    Publishing date 2015-08-29
    Publishing country Switzerland
    Document type Letter ; Comment
    ZDB-ID 193790-x
    ISSN 1873-7560 ; 1421-993X ; 0302-2838
    ISSN (online) 1873-7560 ; 1421-993X
    ISSN 0302-2838
    DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.015
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  4. Article ; Online: Significance of MUC1 in bladder cancer.

    Ahmad, Sarfraz / Lam, Thomas B L / N'Dow, James

    BJU international

    2015  Volume 115, Issue 1, Page(s) 161–162

    MeSH term(s) Biomarkers, Tumor/metabolism ; Humans ; Mucin-1/metabolism ; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms/metabolism
    Chemical Substances Biomarkers, Tumor ; MUC1 protein, human ; Mucin-1
    Language English
    Publishing date 2015-01
    Publishing country England
    Document type Journal Article
    ZDB-ID 1462191-5
    ISSN 1464-410X ; 1464-4096 ; 1358-8672
    ISSN (online) 1464-410X
    ISSN 1464-4096 ; 1358-8672
    DOI 10.1111/bju.12727
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  5. Article ; Online: Between a rock and a hard place: the uncertainties in managing renal stones.

    Lam, Thomas B L / McClinton, Sam

    European urology

    2014  Volume 67, Issue 1, Page(s) 138–139

    MeSH term(s) Humans ; Kidney Calculi/surgery ; Nephrostomy, Percutaneous/methods
    Language English
    Publishing date 2014-07-31
    Publishing country Switzerland
    Document type Editorial ; Comment
    ZDB-ID 193790-x
    ISSN 1873-7560 ; 1421-993X ; 0302-2838
    ISSN (online) 1873-7560 ; 1421-993X
    ISSN 0302-2838
    DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.07.016
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  6. Article ; Online: European Association of Urology Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma: The 2022 Update.

    Ljungberg, Börje / Albiges, Laurence / Abu-Ghanem, Yasmin / Bedke, Jens / Capitanio, Umberto / Dabestani, Saeed / Fernández-Pello, Sergio / Giles, Rachel H / Hofmann, Fabian / Hora, Milan / Klatte, Tobias / Kuusk, Teele / Lam, Thomas B / Marconi, Lorenzo / Powles, Thomas / Tahbaz, Rana / Volpe, Alessandro / Bex, Axel

    European urology

    2022  Volume 82, Issue 4, Page(s) 399–410

    Abstract: Context: The European Association of Urology (EAU) Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) Guideline Panel has prepared evidence-based guidelines and recommendations for the management of RCC.: Objective: To present a summary of the 2022 RCC guideline, which is ... ...

    Abstract Context: The European Association of Urology (EAU) Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) Guideline Panel has prepared evidence-based guidelines and recommendations for the management of RCC.
    Objective: To present a summary of the 2022 RCC guideline, which is based on a standardised methodology including systematic reviews (SRs) and provides transparent and reliable evidence for the management of RCC.
    Evidence acquisition: For the 2022 update, a new literature search was carried out with a cutoff date of May 28, 2021, covering the Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. The data search focused on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective or controlled comparator-arm studies, SRs, and meta-analyses. Evidence synthesis was conducted using modified GRADE criteria as outlined for all the EAU guidelines.
    Evidence synthesis: All chapters of the RCC guideline were updated on the basis of a structured literature assessment, and clinical practice recommendations were developed. The majority of the studies included were retrospective with matched or unmatched cohorts and were based on single- or multi-institution data or national registries. The exception was systemic treatment of metastatic RCC, for which there are several large RCTs, resulting in recommendations that are based on higher levels of evidence.
    Conclusions: The 2022 RCC guidelines have been updated by a multidisciplinary panel of experts using the highest methodological standards. These guidelines provide the most reliable contemporary evidence base for the management of RCC in 2022.
    Patient summary: The European Association of Urology panel for guidelines on kidney cancer has thoroughly evaluated the research data available to establish up-to-date international standards for the care of patients with kidney cancer.
    MeSH term(s) Carcinoma, Renal Cell/therapy ; Humans ; Kidney Neoplasms/pathology ; Kidney Neoplasms/therapy ; Urology
    Language English
    Publishing date 2022-03-26
    Publishing country Switzerland
    Document type Journal Article ; Practice Guideline
    ZDB-ID 193790-x
    ISSN 1873-7560 ; 1421-993X ; 0302-2838
    ISSN (online) 1873-7560 ; 1421-993X
    ISSN 0302-2838
    DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.03.006
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  7. Article ; Online: A randomized trial comparing three Delphi feedback strategies found no evidence of a difference in a setting with high initial agreement.

    MacLennan, Steven / Kirkham, Jamie / Lam, Thomas B L / Williamson, Paula R

    Journal of clinical epidemiology

    2017  Volume 93, Page(s) 1–8

    Abstract: Objectives: The objective of the study was to explore the impact of different feedback strategies on (1) subsequent agreement and (2) variability in Delphi studies.: Study design and setting: A two-round Delphi survey, with a list of outcomes ... ...

    Abstract Objectives: The objective of the study was to explore the impact of different feedback strategies on (1) subsequent agreement and (2) variability in Delphi studies.
    Study design and setting: A two-round Delphi survey, with a list of outcomes generated from the results of a systematic review and interviews, was undertaken while developing a core outcomes set for prostate cancer including two stakeholder groups (health professionals and patients). Seventy-nine outcomes were scored on a scale of one (not important) to nine (critically important). Participants were randomized in round 2 to receive round 1 feedback from peers only, multiple stakeholders separately, or multiple stakeholders combined.
    Results: Agreement on outcomes retained for all feedback groups was high (peer: 92%, multiple separate: 90%, multiple combined: 84%). There were no statistically significant reduction in variability for peer vs. multiple separate (0.016 [-0.035, 0.067]; P = 0.529), or multiple separate vs. multiple combined feedback (0.063 [-0.003, 0.129]; P = 0.062). Peer feedback statistically significantly reduced variability compared with multiple combined feedback (0.079 [0.001, 0.157]; P = 0.046).
    Conclusions: We found no evidence of a difference between different feedback strategies in terms of the number of outcomes retained or reduction in variability of opinion. However, this may be explained by the high level of existing agreement in round 1. Further methodological studies nested within Delphi surveys will help clarify the best strategy.
    MeSH term(s) Delphi Technique ; Feedback ; Female ; Health Personnel ; Humans ; Interviews as Topic ; Male ; Peer Group ; Research Design ; Systematic Reviews as Topic ; Treatment Outcome
    Language English
    Publishing date 2017-10-07
    Publishing country United States
    Document type Comparative Study ; Journal Article ; Randomized Controlled Trial
    ZDB-ID 639306-8
    ISSN 1878-5921 ; 0895-4356
    ISSN (online) 1878-5921
    ISSN 0895-4356
    DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.09.024
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  8. Article ; Online: Reply to E. Jason Abel Letter to the Editor re: Lorenzo Marconi, Saeed Dabestani, Thomas B. Lam, et al. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy of Percutaneous Renal Tumour Biopsy. Eur Urol 2016;69:660-73.

    Marconi, Lorenzo / Lam, Thomas B / Bex, Axel / Ljungberg, Börje / Volpe, Alessandro

    European urology

    2016  Volume 69, Issue 6, Page(s) e119–20

    Language English
    Publishing date 2016-06
    Publishing country Switzerland
    Document type Letter
    ZDB-ID 193790-x
    ISSN 1873-7560 ; 1421-993X ; 0302-2838
    ISSN (online) 1873-7560 ; 1421-993X
    ISSN 0302-2838
    DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.043
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  9. Article ; Online: Reply to Jae Heon Kim's Letter to the Editor re: Lorenzo Marconi, Saeed Dabestani, Thomas B. Lam, et al. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy of Percutaneous Renal Tumour Biopsy. Eur Urol 2016;69:660-73.

    Marconi, Lorenzo / Lam, Thomas B / Bex, Axel / Ljungberg, Börje / Volpe, Alessandro

    European urology

    2016  Volume 70, Issue 5, Page(s) e141–e142

    Language English
    Publishing date 2016-11
    Publishing country Switzerland
    Document type Letter
    ZDB-ID 193790-x
    ISSN 1873-7560 ; 1421-993X ; 0302-2838
    ISSN (online) 1873-7560 ; 1421-993X
    ISSN 0302-2838
    DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.04.026
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  10. Article: Reprint - Bipolar vs. monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction: A Cochrane review.

    Alexander, Cameron Edwin / Scullion, Malo M F / Omar, Muhammad Imran / Yuan, Yuhong / Mamoulakis, Charalampos / N'Dow, James M O / Chen, Changhao / Lam, Thomas B L

    Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada

    2020  Volume 14, Issue 12, Page(s) 423–430

    Abstract: Introduction: There remains uncertainty regarding the differences in patient outcomes between monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (MTURP) and bipolar TURP (BTURP) in the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign ...

    Abstract Introduction: There remains uncertainty regarding the differences in patient outcomes between monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (MTURP) and bipolar TURP (BTURP) in the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO).
    Methods: A systematic literature search was carried out up to March 19, 2019. Methods in the Cochrane Handbook were followed. Certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using the GRADE approach.
    Results: A total of 59 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 8924 participants were included. BTURP probably results in little to no difference in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 12 months (mean difference -0.24, 95% confidence internal [CI] -0.39--0.09; participants=2531; RCTs=16; moderate CoE) or health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 12 months (mean difference -0.12, 95% CI -0.25-0.02; participants=2004, RCTs=11; moderate CoE), compared to MTURP. BTURP probably reduces TUR syndrome (relative risk [RR] 0.17, 95% CI 0.09-0.30; participants= 6,745, RCTs=44; moderate CoE) and blood transfusions (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.30-0.59; participants=5727, RCTs=38; moderate CoE), compared to MTURP. BTURP may carry similar risk of urinary incontinence at 12 months (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01-4.06; participants=751; RCTs=4; low CoE), re-TURP (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.44-2.40; participants=652, RCTs=6, I
    Conclusions: BTURP and MTURP probably improve urological symptoms to a similar degree. BTURP probably reduces TUR syndrome and blood transfusion slightly postoperatively. The moderate certainty of evidence available for primary outcomes suggests no need for further RCTs comparing BTURP and MTURP.
    Language English
    Publishing date 2020-07-25
    Publishing country Canada
    Document type Journal Article ; Review
    ZDB-ID 2431403-1
    ISSN 1911-6470
    ISSN 1911-6470
    DOI 10.5489/cuaj.6464
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

To top