Citations

Clear

1905 citation(s) found for "Yu, Frank".

A national survey of radiation oncologists and urologists on recommendations of prostate‐specific antigen screening for prostate cancer
Kim, Simon P. , Karnes, R. Jeffrey , Nguyen, Paul L. , Thompson, R. Houston, Han, Leona C., Shah, Nilay D., Smaldone, Marc C. , Gross, Cary P. , Frank, Igor, Weight, Christopher , Beebe, Timothy J. , Tilburt, Jon C. , Ziegenfuss, Jeanette Y. , Beebe, Timothy J.

Mayo Clinic

BJU International | August 23, 2013 | Volume: 113 | Issue: 5b | Pages: No page available

10.1111/bju.12422 | PMID 24053213 Get It

Objective To assess recommendations for prostate‐specific antigen ( PSA ) screening in a national survey of radiation oncologists and urologists following the recent USA P reventive S ervices T ask F orce ( USPSTF ) grade D recommendation. Methods A random sample of 1366 radiation oncologists and urologists were identified from the A merican M edical A ssociation P hysician M asterfile. From N ovember 2011 to A pril 2012, a mail survey was sent to query PSA screening recommendations for men at average risk of prostate cancer for the following age groups: 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, 70–74, 75–79 and ≥80 years. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test for differences in PSA ‐based screening recommendations by physician characteristics. Results Response rates were similar at 52% for radiation oncologists and urologists ( P = 0.92). Overall, 51.5% of respondents recommended PSA ‐based screening for men aged 40–49 years, while nearly all endorsed it for those aged 50–74 years (96.1% for 50–59, 97.3% for 60–69, and 87.7% for 70–74 years). However, screening recommendations decreased to 43.9% and 12.8% for men aged 75–79 and ≥80 years, respectively. On multivariable analysis, urologists were more likely to recommend screening for men aged 40–49 (odds ratio [ OR ] 3.09; P < 0.001) and 50–59 years ( OR 3.81; P = 0.01), but less likely for men aged 75–79 ( OR 0.66; P = 0.01) and ≥80 years ( OR 0.45; P = 0.002) compared with radiation oncologists. Conclusion While radiation oncologists and urologists recommended PSA screening for men aged 50–69 years, there was less agreement about screening for younger (40–49 years old) and older (≥70 years) men at average risk for prostate cancer.
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Pediatric and Adolescent Patients
Schneider, Andrew E. , Johnson, Jonathan N. , Taggart, Nathaniel W. , Hagler, Donald J. , Reeder, Guy S., Cetta, Frank , Cabalka, Allison K. , Taggart, Nathaniel W

Mayo Clinic

Congenital Heart Disease | August 16, 2013 | Volume: 9 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 228-234

10.1111/chd.12130 | PMID 23947956 Get It

Progression to detrusor muscle invasion during urothelial carcinoma surveillance is associated with poor prognosis
Breau, Rodney H. , Karnes, R. Jeffrey , Farmer, Sara A., Thapa, Prabin , Cagiannos, Ilias , Morash, Christopher , Frank, Igor

Mayo Clinic

BJU International | August 12, 2013 | Volume: 113 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 900-906

10.1111/bju.12403 | PMID 24053569 Get It

Objective To evaluate survival in patients after radical cystectomy ( RC ) who presented with non‐muscle‐invasive urothelial carcinoma and progressed to muscle invasion during surveillance. Our secondary objective was to evaluate the association between clinical factors before RC and survival. Patients and Methods In all, 981 consecutive M ayo C linic RC patients without a history of radiation or systemic chemotherapy were reviewed. Of these, 190 had RC after they progressed from non‐muscle invasive disease to muscle invasion (progressed to ≥ pT2 ). These patients were compared to 310 patients who had RC before muscle invasion (≤ pT1 ), and 481 patients who had muscle invasion at initial presentation (presented with ≥ pT2 ). Survival estimates were generated using the K aplan– M eier method and compared using the log‐rank test, while adjusted analyses were performed using C ox proportional hazard regression models. Results Patients who progressed to muscle invasion on surveillance had a higher risk of death than patients who initially presented with muscle invasion (overall survival hazard ratio [ HR ] 1.3; 95% confidence interval [ CI ] 1.0, 1.5). The estimated 5‐year cancer‐specific survival was 85.4% for patients presenting with ≤ pT1 , 52.9% for patients who progressed to ≥ pT2 , and 62.4% for patients who presented with ≥ pT2 ( P < 0.001). The corresponding 5‐year overall survival rates were 70.0%, 42.1%, and 49.5% ( P < 0.001). Of the patients who initially presented with non‐muscle‐invasive disease, progression to muscle invasion was associated with increased risk of cancer‐specific death (adjusted HR 2.38; 95% CI 1.6, 3.5). Lack of information about patients who presented without muscle invasion and never received RC is the major limitation of this study. Conclusions Despite close surveillance, many patients who progress to muscle invasion will die from bladder cancer. Patients who progress to muscle invasion on surveillance seem to have particularly aggressive disease and may benefit from multimodal treatments.
Certain physiologic and pathologic effects of microwaves
Herrick, J. F., Krusen, Frank H.

Mayo Clinic

Electrical Engineering | July 27, 2013 | Volume: 72 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 239-244

10.1109/ee.1953.6438552 Get It

Consensus statement on the multidisciplinary management of patients with recurrent and primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes
Collaborative, The Beyond TME, Antoniou, Anthony , Beynon, John, Bhangu, Aneel , Bose, Pradeep, Boyle, Kirsten, Branagan, Graham , Burling, David , Chang, George J. , Clark, Susan K. , Colquhoun, Patrick, Crane, Christopher H. , Darzi, Ara , Das, Prajnan , Delaney, Conor P. , Desai, Anant, Davies, Mark, Dozois, Eric J. , Fitzgerald, J.E.F. , Frizelle, Frank , George, Bruce , George, Mark, Georgiou, Panagiotis , Gupta, Arun , Harris, Dean , Hawkins, M. , Holm, Torbjörn, Hompes, Roel , Jeys, Lee , Jenkins, John T. , Kiran, Ravi P. , Koh, Cherry , Laurberg, Søren , Law, Wai Lun, Liberman, A. Sender , McArthur, D. Ray, Mirnezami, Alex H. , Moran, Brendan , Mortenson, Neil, Myers, Eddie, Nicholls, R. John, O’Connell, P. R. , O’Dwyer, Sarah , Oliver, Alex, Pallan, Arvind, Patel, Prashant , Patel, Uday , Radley, Simon, Ramsey, Kelvin , Rasmussen, P., Richard, Carole, Rutten, H.J.T. , Sagar, P. M. , Sebag‐Montefiore, David , Stocchi, Luca , Swallow, Carol J. , Tait, Diana , Tan, Emile , Tekkis, Paris, As, Nicholas van , Vuong, T. , Wiggers, Theo , Wilson, Malcolm , Winter, Desmond C. , Woodhouse, Christopher, Collaborative, The Beyond TME, Ali, Simak , Brown, Gina , Wilt, Johannes H.W. de , Desai, Anant , Dietz, David , Duff, Michael J. B. , Dziki, Adam Janusz , Glynne‐Jones, Rob , Goldin, Robert , Harji, Deena Pravin , Heriot, Alexander G. , Marshall, Michelle Berger , Radley, Simon, Solomon, Michael J. , Jeys, Lee M

Mayo Clinic

British Journal of Surgery | June 21, 2013 | Volume: 100 | Issue: 8 | Pages: E1-E33

10.1002/bjs.9192_1 | PMID 23901427 Get It

Consensus abstract Background The management of primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes (PRC-bTME) and recurrent rectal cancer (RRC) is challenging. There is global variation in standards and no guidelines exist. To achieve cure most patients require extended, multivisceral, exenterative surgery, beyond conventional total mesorectal excision planes. The aim of the Beyond TME Group was to achieve consensus on the definitions and principles of management, and to identify areas of research priority. Methods Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus. The Group consisted of invited experts from surgery, radiology, oncology and pathology. The process included two international dedicated discussion conferences, formal feedback, three rounds of editing and two rounds of anonymized web-based voting. Consensus was achieved with more than 80 per cent agreement; less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. During conferences held in September 2011 and March 2012, open discussion took place on areas in which there is a low level of consensus. Results The final consensus document included 51 voted statements, making recommendations on ten key areas of PRC-bTME and RRC. Consensus agreement was achieved on the recommendations of 49 statements, with 34 achieving consensus in over 95 per cent. The lowest level of consensus obtained was 76 per cent. There was clear identification of the need for referral to a specialist multidisciplinary team for diagnosis, assessment and further management. Conclusion The consensus process has provided guidance for the management of patients with PRC-bTME or RRC, taking into account global variations in surgical techniques and technology. It has further identified areas of research priority.
The SPARC Score: A Multifactorial Outcome Prediction Model for Patients Undergoing Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer
Eisenberg, Manuel S., Boorjian, Stephen A. , Cheville, John C. , Thompson, R. Houston, Thapa, Prabin , Kaushik, Dharam , Frank, Igor

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Urology | June 14, 2013 | Volume: 190 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 2005-2010

10.1016/j.juro.2013.06.022 | PMID 23770147 Get It

Eligibility for neoadjuvant/adjuvant cisplatin‐based chemotherapy among radical cystectomy patients
Thompson, R. Houston, Boorjian, Stephen A. , Kim, Simon P. , Cheville, John C. , Thapa, Prabin , Tarrel, Robert, Dronca, Roxana , Costello, Brian A. , Frank, Igor

Mayo Clinic

BJU International | June 13, 2013 | Volume: 113 | Issue: 5b | Pages: No page available

10.1111/bju.12274 | PMID 24006893 Get It

Objective To determine renal function eligibility for cisplatin‐based chemotherapy using our experience with radical cystectomy ( RC ) patients. Patients and Methods Using the M ayo C linic C ystectomy R egistry, we identified 768 patients treated with RC without neoadjuvant chemotherapy for urothelial carcinoma from 1980–2005. Glomerular filtration rate ( GFR ) was estimated using the C hronic K idney D isease E pidemiology C ollaboration ( CKD‐EPI ) equation and a value of ≥60 mL/min was considered eligible for cisplatin‐based chemotherapy. Factors associated with change in GFR (from preoperative to 3‐month postoperative) were assessed using linear regression. Results The median age was 68 years, while the median GFR was 60 mL/min both preoperatively and 3 months after RC . Overall, 405 (53%) patients had a GFR of <60 mL/min before surgery and 387 (50%) had a GFR of <60 mL/min at 3 months after RC . Patients with hydronephrosis (209 patients) had significantly lower preoperative GFRs than with patients without hydronephrosis (median 52 vs 62 mL/min, respectively; P < 0.001). Among the 363 patients with a GFR of ≥60 mL/min before RC , 91 (25%) had a decline in renal function to a GFR of <60 mL/min at 3 months after RC . In multivariable analyses, older age ( P < 0.001), higher preoperative GFR ( P < 0.001) and continent urinary diversion ( P = 0.011) were significantly associated with a negative change in GFR after RC . Conclusions Our results suggest that nearly half of patients undergoing RC are not eligible to receive perioperative cisplatin‐based chemotherapy based on renal function status. About a quarter of patients eligible for cisplatin before surgery are no longer eligible after RC . Certain patient characteristics and surgical factors are more likely to experience a negative change in GFR after RC and should be counselled accordingly.
Consensus statement on the multidisciplinary management of patients with recurrent and primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes
Collaborative, The Beyond TME, Antoniou, Anthony , Beynon, John, Bose, Pradeep, Boyle, Kirsten, Branagan, Graham , Brown, Gina , Burling, David , Chang, George J. , Clark, Susan K. , Colquhoun, Patrick, Crane, Christopher H. , Darzi, Ara , Das, Prajnan , Wilt, Johannes H. W. de, Delaney, Conor P. , Desai, Anant, Davies, Mark, Dozois, Eric J. , Fitzgerald, J.E.F. , Frizelle, Frank , George, Bruce , George, Mark, Georgiou, Panagiotis , Glynne‐Jones, R., Goldin, Robert , Gupta, Arun , Harris, Dean , Hawkins, M. , Holm, Torbjörn, Jenkins, John T. , Kiran, Ravi P. , Laurberg, Søren , Law, Wai Lun, Liberman, A. Sender , McArthur, D. Ray, Mirnezami, Alex H. , Moran, Brendan , Mortenson, Neil, Myers, Eddie, Nicholls, R. John, O’Connell, P. R. , O’Dwyer, Sarah , Oliver, Alex, Pallan, Arvind, Patel, Prashant , Radley, Simon, Ramsey, Kelvin , Rasmussen, P., Richard, Carole, Rutten, H.J.T. , Sagar, P. M. , Sebag‐Montefiore, David , Solomon, Michael J. , Stocchi, Luca , Swallow, Carol J. , Tait, Diana , Tekkis, Paris, As, Nicholas van , Vuong, T. , Wiggers, Theo , Wilson, Malcolm , Winter, Desmond C. , Woodhouse, Christopher, Coombes, R. Charles , Collaborative, The Beyond TME, Ali, Simak , Bhangu, Aneel , Desai, Anant , Dietz, David , Duff, Michael J. B. , Dziki, Adam Janusz , Harji, Deena Pravin , Heriot, Alexander G. , Hompes, Roel , Jeys, Lee , Koh, Cherry , Marshall, Michelle Berger , Patel, Uday , Radley, Simon, Tan, Emile , Solomon, Michael J

Mayo Clinic

British Journal of Surgery | June 10, 2013 | Volume: 100 | Issue: 8 | Pages: 1009-1014

10.1002/bjs.9192 | PMID 23754654 Get It

Consensus abstract Background The management of primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes (PRC-bTME) and recurrent rectal cancer (RRC) is challenging. There is global variation in standards and no guidelines exist. To achieve cure most patients require extended, multivisceral, exenterative surgery, beyond conventional total mesorectal excision planes. The aim of the Beyond TME Group was to achieve consensus on the definitions and principles of management, and to identify areas of research priority. Methods Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus. The Group consisted of invited experts from surgery, radiology, oncology and pathology. The process included two international dedicated discussion conferences, formal feedback, three rounds of editing and two rounds of anonymized web-based voting. Consensus was achieved with more than 80 per cent agreement; less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. During conferences held in September 2011 and March 2012, open discussion took place on areas in which there is a low level of consensus. Results The final consensus document included 51 voted statements, making recommendations on ten key areas of PRC-bTME and RRC. Consensus agreement was achieved on the recommendations of 49 statements, with 34 achieving consensus in over 95 per cent. The lowest level of consensus obtained was 76 per cent. There was clear identification of the need for referral to a specialist multidisciplinary team for diagnosis, assessment and further management. Conclusion The consensus process has provided guidance for the management of patients with PRC-bTME or RRC, taking into account global variations in surgical techniques and technology. It has further identified areas of research priority.
GWAS of 126,559 Individuals Identifies Genetic Variants Associated with Educational Attainment
Rietveld, Cornelius A. , Medland, Sarah E. , Derringer, Jaime , Esko, Tõnu , Martín, Nicolás W., Westra, Harm-Jan , Shakhbazov, Konstantin, Abdellaoui, Abdel , Albrecht, Eva, Alizadeh, Behrooz Z. , Amin, Najaf , Baumeister, Sebastian E. , Benke, Kelly S. , Bielak, Lawrence F. , Boatman, Jeffrey A. , Boyle, Patricia A. , Davies, Gail , Leeuw, Christiaan de , Eklund, Niina, Evans, Daniel S. , Ferhmann, Rudolf, Fischer, Krista , Gieger, Christian , Gjessing, Håkon K. , Hägg, Sara , Harris, Jennifer R. , Hayward, Caroline , Jacobsson, Bo , Joshi, Peter K. , Jugessur, Astanand , Kaakinen, Marika , Kanoni, Stavroula , Karjalainen, Juha, Kolčić, Ivana , Kristiansson, Kati , Kutalik, Zoltán , Lahti, Jari , Lee, Sang , Lin, Peng, Lind, Penelope A. , Lohman, Kurt, Loitfelder, Marisa, McMahon, George, Marques‐Vidal, Pedro , Meirelles, Osorio , Milani, Lili , Myhre, Ronny , Nuotio, Marja-Liisa , Oldmeadow, Christopher , Petrovic, Katja, Peyrot, Wouter J. , Polašek, Ozren , Quaye, Lydia, Reinmaa, Eva, Rice, John P. , Rizzi, Thais S., Schmidt, Helena , Schmidt, Reinhold, Smith, Albert V. , Smith, Jennifer A. , Terracciano, Antonio , Loos, Matthijs J. H. M. van der, Vitart, Véronique , Völzke, Henry , Wellmann, Jürgen , Yu, Lei , Zhao, Wei , Allïk, Jüri , Bandinelli, Stefania , Bastardot, François , Beauchamp, Jonathan , Bennett, David A. , Berger, Klaus, Bültmann, Ute , Campbell, Harry, Chabris, Christopher F., Cherkas, Lynn, Chung, Mina K. , Cucca, Francesco , Jager, Philip L. De , Neve, Jan-Emmanuel De, Deary, Ian J. , Dedoussis, George , Deloukas, Panos , Dimitriou, Maria , Eiríksdóttir, Guðný , Elderson, Martin F., Eriksson, Johan G. , Evans, David M. , Faul, Jessica D. , Ferrucci, Luigi , Garcia, Melissa E., Grönberg, Henrik , Guðnason, Vilmundur , Harris, Tamara B., Hastie, Nicholas D. , Hernández, Dena , Hoffmann, Wolfgang , Hofman, Adriaan, Holle, Rolf , Holliday, Elizabeth G., Hottenga, Jouke‐Jan , Illig, Thomas, Järvelin, Marjo‐Riitta , Kähönen, Mika , Kaprio, Jaakko , Kirkpatrick, Robert M. , Kowgier, Matthew , Latvala, Antti , Lawlor, Debbie A. , Lehtimäki, Terho , Li, Jingmei , Lichtenstein, Paul , Lichtner, Peter , Liewald, David C. , Madden, Pamela A. F., Magnusson, Patrik K. E. , Mäkinen, Tomi E., Masala, Marco , McGue, Matt , Mielck, Andreas, Miller, Michael B., Montgomery, Grant W. , Mukherjee, Sutapa , Nyholt, Dale R. , Oostra, Ben A., Palmer, Lyle J. , Palotie, Aarno , Perola, Markus, Peyser, Patricia A. , Preisig, Martin , Räikkönen, Katri , Rivadeneira, Fernando , Rudan, Igor , Rustichini, Aldo , Sarin, Antti-Pekka, Schlessinger, David, Scott, Rodney J. , Snieder, Harold , Pourcain, Beaté St , Starr, John M. , Sul, Jae Hoon , Surakka, Ida , Svento, Rauli , Teumer, Alexander , Study, The LifeLines Cohort, Tiemeier, Henning , Rooij, Frank J.A. van , Wagoner, David R. Van , Vartiainen, Erkki , Viikari, Jorma , Vollenweider, Péter , Vonk, Judith M. , Waeber, Gérard , Weir, David R. , Wichmann, H.‐Erich , Widén, Elisabeth , Willemsen, Gonneke , Wright, Alan F., Davey-Smith, George, Franke, Lude , Groenen, Patrick J. F. , Hofman, Albert , Johannesson, Magnus , Kardia, Sharon L. R., Krueger, Robert F., Laibson, David, Martin, Nicholas G. , Meyer, Michelle N., Posthuma, Daniëlle , Thurik, Roy , Timpson, Nicholas J. , Uitterlinden, André G. , Duijn, Cornelia M. van , Visscher, Peter M. , Benjamin, Daniel J. , Cesarini, David , Koellinger, Philipp , Bennett, David A. , Smith, George Davey , Meyer, Michelle N. , Westra, Harm-Jan , Yang, Jian , Agrawal, Arpana , Barnard, John , Holzapfel, Christina M. , Ibrahim‐Verbaas, Carla A. , Ingelsson, Erik , Lin, Peng, Liu, Ching‐Ti , Tanaka, Toshiko , Attia, John , Berger, Klaus, Bierut, Laura Jean , Boomsma, Dorret I , Andrade, Mariza de , Hall, Per N , Harris, Juliette , Heath, Andrew C. , Hofman, Adriaan, Holliday, Elizabeth G., Iacono, William G. , Launer, Lenore J. , Mäkinen, Tomi E., Metspalu, Andres , Palotie, Aarno V. , Penninx, Brenda W.J.H. , Raitakari, Olli Tuomas , Realo, Anu , Ring, Susan M. , Ripatti, Samuli , Salomaa, Veikko , Study, The LifeLines Cohort, Wilson, James Fox , Conley, Dalton , Davey-Smith, George, Smith, Jennifer A , Hottenga, Jouke-Jan , Martin, Nicholas G , Posthuma, Danielle , St Pourcain, Beate , Medland, Sarah E , Li, Jingmei , Teumer, Alexander , van Duijn, Cornelia M , Smith, Albert V , Ferrucci, Luigi , Davey Smith, George , Vonk, Judith M , Kanoni, Stavroula , Surakka, Ida

Mayo Clinic

Science | May 31, 2013 | Volume: 340 | Issue: 6139 | Pages: 1467-1471

10.1126/science.1235488 | PMID 23722424 Get It

Genetic College Many genomic elements in humans are associated with behavior, including educational attainment. In a genome-wide association study including more than 100,000 samples, Rietveld et al. (p. 1467 , published online 30 May; see the Perspective by Flint and Munafò ) looked for genes related to educational attainment in Caucasians. Small genetic effects at three loci appeared to impact educational attainment.
The Impact of Histological Reclassification during Pathology Re-Review—Evidence of a Will Rogers Effect in Bladder Cancer?
Linder, Brian J. , Boorjian, Stephen A. , Cheville, John C. , Sukov, William R. , Thapa, Prabin , Tarrell, Robert F., Frank, Igor, Linder, Brian J

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Urology | May 23, 2013 | Volume: 190 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 1692-1697

10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.040 | PMID 23707452 Get It