Back to Authors

Montgomery, Jeffrey S.

Mayo Clinic

Michigan Medicine

Citations 12

Twelve-Month Results From the CISTO Study Comparing Radical Cystectomy Versus Bladder-Sparing Therapy for Recurrent High-Grade Non–Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer
Gore, John L. , Wolff, Erika M. , Nash, Michael G. , Comstock, Bryan A. , Gilbert, Scott M. , Chang, Sam S., Chisolm, Stephanie , MacLean, Douglas B., Wright, Jonathan L. , Kates, Max , Pohar, Kamal S. , Guzzo, Thomas J., Bivalacqua, Trinity J, Nepple, Kenneth G. , Montgomery, Jeffrey S., Scarpato, Kristen R., Master, Viraj A. , Chen, David YT , Mossanen, Matthew , O’Neil, Brock , Tyson, Mark D. , Mansour, Ahmed M. , Chamie, Karim, Riggs, Stephen B. , Kukreja, Janet Baack , Peyton, Cheri L. , Nix, Jeffrey W. , Dickstein, Rian, Sankin, Alex , Lane, Brian R. , Bassett, Jeffrey C. , Patel, Sanjay , Lee, Eugene K. , Ritch, Chad R. , Follmer, Kristin , Kim, Sung Min , Kessler, Larry G. , group, on behalf of the CISTO Collaborative, Gore, John L., Smith, Angela B., Wolff, Erika M., Comstock, Bryan A., Nash, Michael G., Follmer, Kristin M., Lee, Jenney R., Kim, Sung Min, Kessler, Larry G., Gilbert, Scott M., Chang, Sam S., Wright, Jonathan L., Kates, Max R., Pohar, Kamal S., Guzzo, Thomas J., Bivalacqua, Trinity J., Nepple, Kenneth G., Montgomery, Jeffrey S., Scarpato, Kristen R., Woldu, Solomon L., Master, Viraj A., Chen, David Y.T., Mossanen, Matthew, Daneshmand, Siamak, O'Neil, Brock B., Tyson, Mark D., Westerman, Mary E., Kamat, Ashish M., Mansour, Ahmed M., Chamie, Karim, Riggs, Stephen B., Kukreja, Janet B., Modi, Parth K., Garg, Tullika, Peyton, Charles C., Nix, Jeffrey W., Dickstein, Rian, Gadzinski, Adam J., Sankin, Alex, Shore, Neal D., Lane, Brian R., Bassett, Jeffrey C., Patel, Sanjay, Morris, David S., Macleod, Liam C., Lee, Eugene K., Ritch, Chad R., Chisolm, Stephanie, MacLean, Douglas B., Almeida, Fred, Murray, Mary Beth Ballard, Lindsey, Nancy, Lipman, Robert, Oliver, Richard M., Roscoe, Lori A., Sachse, Karen, Lotan, Yair, Porten, Sima P., Taylor, Jennifer M., Steinberg, Gary D., Catto, James W.F., Downs, Tracy M., Malin, Jennifer L., Davicioni, Elai, Rios, Patricia, Yano, Marielle, Jun, Grace, Li, Casey, Nefcy, Christopher, Basu, Anirban, Heagerty, Patrick J., Catto, James W.F. , Sankin, Alexander , Woldu, Solomon L , Master, Viraj A , Chen, David Y T , Daneshmand, Siamak , O'Neil, Brock B , Westerman, Mary E , Kamat, Ashish M. , Modi, Parth K , Peyton, Charles C , Gadzinski, Adam J , Shore, Neal , Patel, Sanjay , Ritch, Chad R , Follmer, Kristin M , Kim, Sung Min , Kessler, Larry G , Bivalacqua, Trinity J. , Daneshmand, Siamak , Westerman, Mary E. , Garg, Tullika K. , Shore, Neal D. , Morris, David S. , Macleod, Liam Connor , Lee, Jenney R. , Smith, Angela B. , group, on behalf of the CISTO Collaborative, Gore, John L., Smith, Angela B., Wolff, Erika M., Comstock, Bryan A., Nash, Michael G., Follmer, Kristin M., Lee, Jenney R., Kim, Sung Min, Kessler, Larry G., Gilbert, Scott M., Chang, Sam S., Wright, Jonathan L., Kates, Max R., Pohar, Kamal S., Guzzo, Thomas J., Bivalacqua, Trinity J., Nepple, Kenneth G., Montgomery, Jeffrey S., Scarpato, Kristen R., Woldu, Solomon L., Master, Viraj A., Chen, David Y.T., Mossanen, Matthew, Daneshmand, Siamak, O'Neil, Brock B., Tyson, Mark D., Westerman, Mary E., Kamat, Ashish M., Mansour, Ahmed M., Chamie, Karim, Riggs, Stephen B., Kukreja, Janet B., Modi, Parth K., Garg, Tullika, Peyton, Charles C., Nix, Jeffrey W., Dickstein, Rian, Gadzinski, Adam J., Sankin, Alex, Shore, Neal D., Lane, Brian R., Bassett, Jeffrey C., Patel, Sanjay, Morris, David S., Macleod, Liam C., Lee, Eugene K., Ritch, Chad R., Chisolm, Stephanie, MacLean, Douglas B., Almeida, Fred, Murray, Mary Beth Ballard, Lindsey, Nancy, Lipman, Robert, Oliver, Richard M., Roscoe, Lori A., Sachse, Karen, Lotan, Yair, Porten, Sima P., Taylor, Jennifer M., Steinberg, Gary D., Catto, James W.F., Downs, Tracy M., Malin, Jennifer L., Davicioni, Elai, Rios, Patricia, Yano, Marielle, Jun, Grace, Li, Casey, Nefcy, Christopher, Basu, Anirban, Heagerty, Patrick J.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | December 15, 2025 | Volume: 44 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 274-285

10.1200/jco-25-01324 Get It

PURPOSE To compare patient-reported and clinical outcomes between radical cystectomy (RC) and bladder-sparing therapy (BST) in patients with recurrent high-grade non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS This pragmatic, prospective observational cohort study was designed with patients, who selected and prioritized outcomes. Eligible adults were candidates for both RC or BST, had previous induction Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), and received their last treatment within 12 months. The primary outcome was the EORTC-QLQ-C30 physical function scale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included other EORTC-QLQ-C30 scales, depression, anxiety, bladder cancer–specific quality of life (QOL), financial burden, and cancer-specific outcomes. Targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) was used to calculate average treatment effect (ATE) estimates between arms. Inverse probability weighted risk ratios (wRR) were calculated using quasi-Poisson regression. RESULTS Of 570 participants (mean age 71.4 years; 21% female), 371 selected BST and 199 selected RC. Physical function was significantly worse in the RC arm at 3 months; by 9 months, there was no difference between arms, and at 12 months, physical function did not differ (ATE, 0.9; 95% CI, –0.6 to 2.4; P = .22). RC was associated with better emotional function, generic health-related QOL, and financial burden, and lower depression and anxiety, while BST was associated with better bowel and sexual health. Cancer-specific survival was 99% for BST versus 96% for RC (wRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.01). RC was associated with a higher risk of adverse events and serious adverse events, including a 90-day mortality rate of 2.5%. CONCLUSION Most patient-prioritized outcomes were similar or better among participants who chose RC compared with BST. These findings support the continued role of RC in managing recurrent high-grade NMIBC.
Bladder Cancer, Version 3.2024
Flaig, Thomas W. , Abern, Michael, Agarwal, Neeraj , Bangs, Rick , Buyyounouski, Mark K. , Chang, Paul, Friedlander, Terence W. , Greenberg, Richard E. , Guru, Khurshid A. , Herr, Harry W., Hoffman‐Censits, Jean , Kaimakliotis, Hristos Z. , Kishan, Amar U. , Kundu, Shilajit , Lele, Subodh M. , Mamtani, Ronac , Michalski, Jeff M., Montgomery, Jeffrey S., Patterson, Anthony, Peyton, Charles C. , Preston, Mark A. , Sexton, Wade J. , Stewart, Tyler F. , Sundi, Debasish , Tollefson, Matthew K. , Wright, Jonathan L. , Cassara, Carly J., Gurski, Lisa A., Tollefson, Matthew, Spiess, Philippe E. , Agarwal, Neeraj , Chan, Kevin , Chang, Sam S. , Chang, Paul, Mian, Omar Y. , Parikh, Mamta , Plimack, Elizabeth R. , Richards, Kyle A. , Siefker-Radtke, Arlene Odelia , Tward, Jonathan D.

Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network | May 16, 2024 | Volume: 22 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 216-225

10.6004/jnccn.2024.0024 Get It

Bladder cancer, the sixth most common cancer in the United States, is most commonly of the urothelial carcinoma histologic subtype. The clinical spectrum of bladder cancer is divided into 3 categories that differ in prognosis, management, and therapeutic aims: (1) non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC); (2) muscle invasive, nonmetastatic disease; and (3) metastatic bladder cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights detail recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer, including changes in the fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumours: Urinary and Male Genital Tumours and how the NCCN Guidelines aligned with these updates; new and emerging treatment options for bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)–unresponsive NMIBC; and updates to systemic therapy recommendations for advanced or metastatic disease.
Neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy and lymphadenectomy for penile cancer: an international, multi-institutional, real-world study
Pham, Rachel, Zacharias, Niki M. , Ionescu, Filip , Paravathaneni, Mahati, Marchetti, Kathryn , Sanchez, Darren , Mustasam, Arfa, Sandstrom, Reagan, Vikram, Raghu , Schneider, Amy, Pagliaro, Lance C. , Alifrangis, Constantine , Master, Viraj A. , Hernandez, Cindy, Moses, Kelvin A. , Protzel, Chris, Montgomery, Jeffrey S., Ángel, Martín , Tobias‐Machado, Marcos , Pettaway, Curtis A. , Chahoud, Jad , Nazha, Bassel , Chahoud, Jad , Rose, Kyle , Dhillon, Jasreman , Rao, Priya , Albersen, Maarten , Roussel, Eduard , Nazha, Bassel , Spiess, Philippe E.

JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute | February 17, 2024 | Volume: 116 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 966-973

10.1093/jnci/djae034 Get It

Abstract Introduction This study investigated the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advance penile squamous cell carcinoma for which current evidence is lacking. Methods Included patients had locally advanced penile squamous cell carcinoma with clinical lymph node metastasis treated with at least 1 dose of neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to planned consolidative lymphadenectomy. Objective response rates were assessed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. The primary and secondary outcomes were overall survival and progression-free survival, estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method. Treatment-related adverse events were graded per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0. Results A total of 209 patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced and clinically node-positive penile squamous cell carcinoma. The study population consisted of 7% of patients with stage II disease, 48% with stage III, and 45% with stage IV. Grade 2 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 35 (17%) patients, and no treatment-related mortality was observed. Of the patients, 201 (97%) completed planned consolidative lymphadenectomy. During follow-up, 106 (52.7%) patients expired, with a median overall survival of 37.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = 23.8 to 50.1 months) and median progression-free survival of 26.0 months (95% CI = 11.7 to 40.2 months). Objective response rate was 57.2%, with 87 (43.2%) having partial response and 28 (13.9%) having a complete response. Patients with objective response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a longer median overall survival (73.0 vs 17.0 months, P < .01) compared with those who did not. The lymph node pathologic complete response rate was 24.8% in the cohort. Conclusion Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with lymphadenectomy for locally advanced penile squamous cell carcinoma is well tolerated and active to reduce the disease burden and improve long-term survival outcomes.
Comparing Patient-reported Functional Outcomes After Radical Prostatectomy in Historical and Contemporary Practice
Singhal, Udit , Hollenbeck, Brent K. , Kaffenberger, Samuel D. , Salami, Simpa S. , George, Arvin K. , Skolarus, Ted A. , Montgomery, Jeffrey S., Wittmann, Daniela , Miller, David C. , Wei, John T., Palapattu, Ganesh S. , Montie, James E. , Dunn, Rodney L. , Wittmann, Daniela A , Salami, Simpa S , Singhal, Udit , Morgan, Todd M.

Journal of Urology | August 11, 2023 | Volume: 210 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 771-777

10.1097/ju.0000000000003646 Get It

Neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy for clinically node-positive penile squamous cell carcinoma: An international, multicenter, real-world study.
Sanchez, Darren , Mustasam, Arfa, Sandstrom, Reagan, Pagliaro, Lance C. , Alifrangis, Constantine , Moses, Kelvin A. , Master, Viraj A. , Zhuang, Tony , Montgomery, Jeffrey S., Protzel, Chris, Machado, Marcos Tobías , Pettaway, Curtis A. , Chahoud, Jad , Rose, Kyle , Marchetti, Kathryn , Zacharias, Niki M. , Albersen, Maarten , Roussel, Eduard , Nazha, Bassel , Spiess, Philippe E.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | March 14, 2023 | Volume: 41 | Issue: 6_suppl | Pages: 9-9

10.1200/jco.2023.41.6_suppl.9 Get It

9 Background: The efficacy of neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy (NAPC) in penile squamous cell carcinoma (PSCC) was provided by small clinical trials, leaving clinicians with scant evidence-based guidance. Thus, we aimed to analyze real-world outcomes of patients with PSCC who received NAPC prior to surgical resection. Methods: Patients from 9 tertiary care centers who had undergone NAPC prior surgical resection for PSCC were included with locally advanced (cTany, cN+), non-metastatic (M0) disease. The primary and secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), Response was determined via best overall response measured with RECIST 1.1 criteria. Results: 167 patients were included, 137 (84%), of which received TIP prior to surgical resection. Ninety-two (55%) patients died during follow up, and the mean follow up for survivors was 57 months. The median OS was 42 months, while the median PFS was 17 months. The table details the response rates to NAPC, the associated survival, and Cox Proportional Hazards Modelling of OS and PFS. Predictors for OS and RFS included lymphovascular invasion, positive number of lymph nodes, extranodal extension, downstaging, best overall response, and ypN status. Figure 1 demonstrates OS outcomes by RECIST best response after chemotherapy, presence of downstaging after NAPC, ypN stage, and presence of extranodal extension. Conclusions: Upfront NAPC is effective in patients with lymph node metastases from penile carcinoma. Unsurprisingly, patients who demonstrated a robust response to therapy had improved survival outcomes compared to those who had not—as measured by RECIST criteria, tumor downstaging, pN staging, and presence of extranodal extension. This study represents the largest conglomeration of multi-institutional penile carcinoma patients treated with NAPC, and provides further supportive data for multimodal therapy for advanced penile cancer patients while prospective clinical trials complete accrual. [Table: see text]
NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Bladder Cancer, Version 2.2022
Flaig, Thomas W. , Abern, Michael, Agarwal, Neeraj , Bangs, Rick , Boorjian, Stephen A. , Buyyounouski, Mark K. , Chan, Kevin , Friedlander, Terence W. , Greenberg, Richard E. , Guru, Khurshid A. , Herr, Harry W., Hoffman‐Censits, Jean , Kishan, Amar U. , Kundu, Shilajit , Lele, Subodh M. , Mamtani, Ronac , Margulis, Vitaly , Michalski, Jeff M., Montgomery, Jeffrey S., Nandagopal, Lakshminarayanan , Pagliaro, Lance C. , Patterson, Anthony, Pohar, Kamal S. , Preston, Mark A. , Sexton, Wade J. , Tollefson, Matthew K. , Wright, Jonathan L. , Dwyer, Mary A., Cassara, Carly J., Gurski, Lisa A., Tollefson, Matthew, Spiess, Philippe E. , Agarwal, Neeraj , Chang, Sam S. , Mian, Omar Y. , Parikh, Mamta , Plimack, Elizabeth R. , Richards, Kyle A. , Siefker-Radtke, Arlene Odelia , Tward, Jonathan D.

Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network | August 10, 2022 | Volume: 20 | Issue: 8 | Pages: 866-878

10.6004/jnccn.2022.0041 Get It

The NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with bladder cancer and other urinary tract cancers (upper tract tumors, urothelial carcinoma of the prostate, primary carcinoma of the urethra). These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines regarding the treatment of non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer, including how to treat in the event of a bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) shortage; new roles for immune checkpoint inhibitors in non–muscle invasive, muscle-invasive, and metastatic bladder cancer; and the addition of antibody–drug conjugates for metastatic bladder cancer.
Bladder Cancer, Version 3.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology
Flaig, Thomas W. , Abern, Michael, Bangs, Rick , Begovic, Jovan, Brown, Jason, Buyyounouski, Mark K. , Chan, Kevin, Chang, Paul, Chin, Arnold I., Guru, Khurshid A. , Herr, Harry W., Hoffman‐Censits, Jean , Kaimakliotis, Hristos, Kundu, Shilajit, Lele, Subodh M. , Luckenbaugh, Amy, Maldonado, Jonathan, Mei, Lin, Montgomery, Jeffrey S., Parikh, Mamta, Patterson, Anthony, Peyton, Charles, Preston, Mark A. , Richards, Kyle, Seyedin, Steven, Stewart, Tyler, Sundi, Debasish, Swami, Umang, Tollefson, Matthew, Wright, Jonathan L. , Cassara, Carly J., Sliker, Bailee, Inman, Brant A. , Friedlander, Terence W. , Pagliaro, Lance C. , Inman, Brant A , Spiess, Philippe E. , Abern, Michael, Begovic, Jovan, Brown, Jason, Chan, Kevin, Chang, Paul, Chin, Arnold I., Kaimakliotis, Hristos, Kundu, Shilajit, Luckenbaugh, Amy, Maldonado, Jonathan, Mei, Lin, Parikh, Mamta, Peyton, Charles, Plimack, Elizabeth R. , Richards, Kyle, Seyedin, Steven, Siefker-Radtke, Arlene Odelia , Stewart, Tyler, Sundi, Debasish, Swami, Umang, Tollefson, Matthew, Cassara, Carly J., Sliker, Bailee

Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network | March 5, 2020 | Volume: 18 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 329-354

10.6004/jnccn.2020.0011 Get It

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Bladder Cancer focuses on the clinical presentation and workup of suspected bladder cancer, treatment of non–muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer, and treatment of metastatic urothelial bladder cancer because important updates have recently been made to these sections. Some important updates include recommendations for optimal treatment of non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer in the event of a bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) shortage and details about biomarker testing for advanced or metastatic disease. The systemic therapy recommendations for second-line or subsequent therapies have also been revised. Treatment and management of muscle-invasive, nonmetastatic disease is covered in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer available at NCCN.org . Additional topics covered in the complete version include treatment of nonurothelial histologies and recommendations for nonbladder urinary tract cancers such as upper tract urothelial carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma of the prostate, and primary carcinoma of the urethra.
Biologic Significance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Invisibility in Localized Prostate Cancer
Salami, Simpa S. , Kaplan, Jeremy , Nallandhighal, Srinivas , Takhar, Mandeep, Tosoian, Jeffrey J. , Lee, Matthew , Yoon, Junhee, Plouffe, Komal , Kaffenberger, Samuel D. , Schaeffer, Edward M. , Karnes, R. Jeffrey , George, Arvin K. , Montgomery, Jeffrey S., You, Sungyong , Tomlins, Scott A. , Curci, Nicole E. , Kim, Hyung L. , Spratt, Daniel E. , Palapattu, Ganesh S. , Spratt, Daniel E , Kim, Hyung L , Salami, Simpa S , Hovelson, Daniel H. , Lotan, Tamara Levin , Morgan, Todd M. , Davenport, Matthew S. , Udager, Aaron M , Lee, Matthew S

JCO Precision Oncology | June 12, 2019 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: 3 | Pages: 1-12

10.1200/po.19.00054 Get It

PURPOSE Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is used widely for prostate cancer (PCa) evaluation. Approximately 35% of aggressive tumors, however, are not visible on mpMRI. We sought to identify the molecular alterations associated with mpMRI-invisible tumors and determine whether mpMRI visibility is associated with PCa prognosis. METHODS Discovery and validation cohorts included patients who underwent mpMRI before radical prostatectomy and were found to harbor both mpMRI-visible (Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System 3 to 5) and -invisible (Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System 1 or 2) foci on surgical pathology. Next-generation sequencing was performed to determine differential gene expression between mpMRI-visible and -invisible foci. A genetic signature for tumor mpMRI visibility was derived in the discovery cohort and assessed in an independent validation cohort. Its association with long-term oncologic outcomes was evaluated in a separate testing cohort. RESULTS The discovery cohort included 10 patients with 26 distinct PCa foci on surgical pathology, of which 12 (46%) were visible and 14 (54%) were invisible on preoperative mpMRI. Next-generation sequencing detected prioritized genetic mutations in 14 (54%) tumor foci (n = 8 mpMRI visible, n = 6 mpMRI invisible). A nine-gene signature (composed largely of cell organization/structure genes) associated with mpMRI visibility was derived (area under the curve = 0.89), and the signature predicted MRI visibility with 75% sensitivity and 100% specificity (area under the curve = 0.88) in the validation cohort. In the testing cohort (n = 375, median follow-up 8 years) there was no significant difference in biochemical recurrence, distant metastasis, or cancer-specific mortality in patients with predicted mpMRI-visible versus -invisible tumors (all P > .05). CONCLUSION Compared with mpMRI-invisible disease, mpMRI-visible tumors are associated with underexpression of cellular organization genes. mpMRI visibility does not seem to be predictive of long-term cancer outcomes, highlighting the need for biopsy strategies that detect mpMRI-invisible tumors.