View Item 

Show simple item record

Characterising potential bone scan overuse amongst men treated with radical prostatectomy
dc.contributor.authorKirk, Peter S.
dc.contributor.authorBorza, Tudor
dc.contributor.authorCaram, Megan E.V.
dc.contributor.authorShumway, Dean A.
dc.contributor.authorMakarov, Danil V.
dc.contributor.authorBurns, Jennifer A.
dc.contributor.authorShelton, Jeremy B.
dc.contributor.authorLeppert, John T.
dc.contributor.authorChapman, Christina
dc.contributor.authorChang, Michael
dc.contributor.authorHollenbeck, Brent K.
dc.contributor.authorSkolarus, Ted A.
dc.date.accessioned2019-06-20T17:04:21Z
dc.date.availableWITHHELD_14_MONTHS
dc.date.available2019-06-20T17:04:21Z
dc.date.issued2019-07
dc.identifier.citationKirk, Peter S.; Borza, Tudor; Caram, Megan E.V.; Shumway, Dean A.; Makarov, Danil V.; Burns, Jennifer A.; Shelton, Jeremy B.; Leppert, John T.; Chapman, Christina; Chang, Michael; Hollenbeck, Brent K.; Skolarus, Ted A. (2019). "Characterising potential bone scan overuse amongst men treated with radical prostatectomy." BJU International 124(1): 55-61.
dc.identifier.issn1464-4096
dc.identifier.issn1464-410X
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/149497
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.subject.otherdiagnostic imaging
dc.subject.otherprostatic neoplasms
dc.subject.otherradionuclide imaging
dc.subject.otherprostatectomy
dc.subject.otherneoplasm metastasis
dc.titleCharacterising potential bone scan overuse amongst men treated with radical prostatectomy
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelInternal Medicine and Specialties
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149497/1/bju14551.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149497/2/bju14551_am.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/bju.14551
dc.identifier.sourceBJU International
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShavers VL, Brown M, Klabunde CN et al. Race/ethnicity and the intensity of medical monitoring under “watchful waiting” for prostate cancer. Med Care 2004; 42: 239 – 50
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChoi WW, Williams SB, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Nguyen PL, Hu JC. Overuse of imaging for staging low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2011; 185: 1645 – 9
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFalchook AD, Hendrix LH, Chen RC. Guideline‐discordant use of imaging during work‐up of newly diagnosed prostate cancer. J Oncol Pract 2015; 11: e239 – 46
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLavery HJ, Brajtbord JS, Levinson AW, Nabizada‐Pace F, Pollard ME, Samadi DB. Unnecessary imaging for the staging of low‐risk prostate cancer is common. Urology 2011; 77: 274 – 8
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMakarov DV, Hu EYC, Walter D et al. Appropriateness of prostate cancer imaging among veterans in a delivery system without incentives for overutilization. Health Serv Res 2016; 51: 1021 – 51
dc.identifier.citedreferencePalvolgyi R, Daskivich TJ, Chamie K, Kwan L, Litwin MS. Bone scan overuse in staging of prostate cancer: an analysis of a Veterans Affairs cohort. Urology 2011; 77: 1330 – 6
dc.identifier.citedreferencePorten SP, Smith A, Odisho AY et al. Updated trends in imaging use in men diagnosed with prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2014; 17: 246 – 51
dc.identifier.citedreferencePrasad SM, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Nguyen PL, Hu JC. Inappropriate utilization of radiographic imaging in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer in the United States. Cancer 2012; 118: 1260 – 7
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHurley P, Dhir A, Gao Y et al. A statewide intervention improves appropriate imaging in localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2017; 197: 1222 – 8
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMakarov DV, Loeb S, Ulmert D, Drevin L, Lambe M, Stattin P. Prostate cancer imaging trends after a nationwide effort to discourage inappropriate prostate cancer imaging. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013; 105: 1306 – 13
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLoeb S, Makarov DV, Schaeffer EM, Humphreys EB, Walsh PC. Prostate specific antigen at the initial diagnosis of metastasis to bone in patients after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2010; 184: 157 – 61
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCher ML, Bianco FJ Jr, Lam JS et al. Limited role of radionuclide bone scintigraphy in patients with prostate specific antigen elevations after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1998; 160: 1387 – 91
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChoueiri TK, Dreicer R, Paciorek A, Carroll PR, Konety B. A model that predicts the probability of positive imaging in prostate cancer cases with biochemical failure after initial definitive local therapy. J Urol 2008; 179: 906 – 10
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKane CJ, Amling CL, Johnstone PA et al. Limited value of bone scintigraphy and computed tomography in assessing biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. Urology 2003; 61: 607 – 11
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOkotie OT, Aronson WJ, Wieder JA et al. Predictors of metastatic disease in men with biochemical failure following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2004; 171: 2260 – 4
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDotan ZA, Bianco FJ Jr, Rabbani F et al. Pattern of prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) failure dictates the probability of a positive bone scan in patients with an increasing PSA after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 1962 – 8
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHussein AA, Punnen S, Zhao S et al. Current use of imaging after primary treatment of prostate cancer. J Urol 2015; 194: 98 – 104
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMaurer T, Eiber M, Schwaiger M, Gschwend JE. Current use of PSMA‐PET in prostate cancer management. Nat Rev Urol 2016; 13: 226 – 35
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMittakanti HR, Thomas I‐C, Shelton JB et al. Accuracy of prostate‐specific antigen values in prostate cancer registries. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: 3586 – 7
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChu DI, Moreira DM, Gerber L et al. Effect of race and socioeconomic status on surgical margins and biochemical outcomes in an equal‐access health care setting. Cancer 2012; 118: 4999 – 5007
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTendulkar RD, Agrawal S, Gao T et al. Contemporary update of a multi‐institutional predictive nomogram for salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: 3648 – 54
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMaurer T, Gschwend JE, Rauscher I et al. Diagnostic efficacy of (68)gallium‐PSMA positron emission tomography compared to conventional imaging for lymph node staging of 130 consecutive patients with intermediate to high risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2016; 195: 1436 – 43
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKabasakal L, Demirci E, Ocak M et al. Evaluation of PSMA PET/CT imaging using a 68Ga‐HBED‐CC ligand in patients with prostate cancer and the value of early pelvic imaging. Nucl Med Commun 2015; 36: 582 – 7
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAfshar‐Oromieh A, Avtzi E, Giesel FL et al. The diagnostic value of PET/CT imaging with the (68)Ga‐labelled PSMA ligand HBED‐CC in the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015; 42: 197 – 209
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEiber M, Maurer T, Souvatzoglou M et al. Evaluation of hybrid 68Ga‐PSMA ligand PET/CT in 248 patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med 2015; 56: 668 – 74
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGadzinski AJ, Greene KL, Carroll P, Ryan CJ, Feng FY, Hope T. Detection of prostate cancer lesions using Gallium‐68 PSMA‐11 PET in men with biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36: 236
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFreedland SJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA et al. Risk of prostate cancer‐specific mortality following biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA 2005; 294: 433 – 9
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFu AZ, Tsai HT, Haque R et al. Mortality and androgen deprivation therapy as salvage treatment for biochemical recurrence after primary therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2017; 197: 1448 – 54
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGerber FH, Goodreau JJ, Kirchner PT, Fouty WJ. Efficacy of preoperative and postoperative bone scanning in the management of breast carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1977; 297: 300 – 3
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRunowicz CD, Leach CR, Henry NL et al. American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology breast cancer survivorship care guideline. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: 611 – 35
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNational Comprehensive Cancer Network. Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Prostate Cancer v2. Available at: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf. Accessed June 2017
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAmerican Urological Association. PSA Testing for the Pretreatment Staging and Posttreatment Management of Prostate Cancer: 2013 Revision of 2009 Best Practice Statement. Available at: https://auanet.org/documents//education/clinical-guidance/Prostate-Specific-Antigen.pdf. Accessed June 2017
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAbuzallouf S, Dayes I, Lukka H. Baseline staging of newly diagnosed prostate cancer: a summary of the literature. J Urol 2004; 171: 2122 – 7
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
bju14551.pdf
Size:
370.2KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
bju14551_am.pdf
Size:
234.8KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.