Tag Archive for: biomarker

Posts

Article of the week: A four‐group urine risk classifier for predicting outcomes in patients with prostate cancer

Every week, the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. These are intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation. 

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

A four‐group urine risk classifier for predicting outcomes in patients with prostate cancer

Shea P. Connell*, Marcelino Yazbek-Hanna*, Frank McCarthy, Rachel Hurst*, MartynWebb*, Helen Curley*, Helen Walker, Rob Mills, Richard Y. Ball, Martin G. Sanda§, Kathryn L. Pellegrini§, Dattatraya Patil§, Antoinette S. Perry, Jack Schalken**, Hardev Pandha††, Hayley Whitaker‡‡, Nening Dennis, Christine Stuttle, Ian G. Mills§§¶¶***, Ingrid Guldvik¶¶, Movember GAP1 Urine Biomarker Consortium1, Chris Parker†††, Daniel S. Brewer*‡‡‡, Colin S. Cooper* and Jeremy Clark*

*Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK, §Department of Urology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA , School of Biology and Environmental Science, Science West, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland, **Nijmegen Medical Centre, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, ††Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Surrey, Guildford, ‡‡Molecular Diagnostics and Therapeutics Group, University College London, London, §§School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Institute for Health Sciences, Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK, ¶¶Centre for Molecular Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, ***Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, †††Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton and ‡‡‡Earlham Institute, Norwich, UK

Abstract

Objectives

To develop a risk classifier using urine‐derived extracellular vesicle (EV)‐RNA capable of providing diagnostic information on disease status prior to biopsy, and prognostic information for men on active surveillance (AS).

Patients and Methods

Post‐digital rectal examination urine‐derived EV‐RNA expression profiles (n = 535, multiple centres) were interrogated with a curated NanoString panel. A LASSO‐based continuation ratio model was built to generate four prostate urine risk (PUR) signatures for predicting the probability of normal tissue (PUR‐1), D’Amico low‐risk (PUR‐2), intermediate‐risk (PUR‐3), and high‐risk (PUR‐4) prostate cancer. This model was applied to a test cohort (n = 177) for diagnostic evaluation, and to an AS sub‐cohort (n = 87) for prognostic evaluation.

Table 2. NanoString gene probes incorporated by LASSO regularization in the final optimal model used to produce the prostate urine risk signatures

Results

Each PUR signature was significantly associated with its corresponding clinical category (P < 0.001). PUR‐4 status predicted the presence of clinically significant intermediate‐ or high‐risk disease (area under the curve = 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70–0.84). Application of PUR provided a net benefit over current clinical practice. In an AS sub‐cohort (n = 87), groups defined by PUR status and proportion of PUR‐4 had a significant association with time to progression (interquartile range hazard ratio [HR] 2.86, 95% CI 1.83–4.47; P < 0.001). PUR‐4, when used continuously, dichotomized patient groups with differential progression rates of 10% and 60% 5 years after urine collection (HR 8.23, 95% CI 3.26–20.81; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Urine‐derived EV‐RNA can provide diagnostic information on aggressive prostate cancer prior to biopsy, and prognostic information for men on AS. PUR represents a new and versatile biomarker that could result in substantial alterations to current treatment of patients with prostate cancer.

 

Editorial: Do you need further assistance in diagnosing and risk stratifying prostate cancer?

I would hope the answer to the question posed in the title is a universal ‘yes’; at least that is my experience with this complex and common disease. The concept that in 2019, we have unmet needs in prostate cancer diagnostics is somewhat remarkable, given that we have access to: (i) one of the most widely used biomarkers in oncology (PSA), (ii) a readily accessible organ to examine (DRE), (iii) state of the art imaging (MRI, positron emission tomography), (iv) specialty biopsy systems (fusion/transperineal template), (v) enhanced risk stratification systems (National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN], Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment [CAPRA], etc.), (vi) numerous nomograms, (vii) secondary urine/serum biomarkers (Prostate Health Index [PHI], prostate cancer antigen 3 [PCA3], SelectMDx, ExoDx, four‐kallikrein panel [4K]), and (viii) commercially available genomic platforms (Prolaris, OncotypeDx, Decipher).

The paper by Connell et al. [1] in this issue of BJUI asks you to consider adding another diagnostic test to your list. You might correctly assume from the title that the test is in discovery/validation stages, and lacks a fancy commercialised name. Many steps await any promising biomarker to make it to your clinic. So why pay attention to this one? Let me reiterate a few points made by the authors and suggest where new paradigms might emerge if the test delivers on its promises.

First, the test crosses over the current barriers between screening patients and active surveillance (AS). In both populations we care about Gleason Grade Group ≥2. Yet a SelectMDx or similar tests are validated for diagnosis but not for monitoring Grade Group 1 on AS. Genomic profiling tests have strong validation and prognostic value for AS, but require tissue and external laboratory work flows. This marker is being tested for both settings, with potentially meaningful distinctions for both patient groups.

Second, this test is in the urine and does not need imaging or needles to obtain samples. It may have serial use (if cost‐effective) for monitoring AS.

Third, for AS cohorts, the test seems to be able to identify progression well in advance. This would potentially allow for early intervention in the correct patients, and less intense monitoring in the remaining.

Fourth, the test metrics looked favourable in PSA screened and unscreened populations; will we ever see a novel biomarker bold enough to move to primary/independent screening status?

Fifth, some of the secondary biomarkers you may be using now are included in this model: PCA3, transmembrane protease serine 2:v‑ets erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog (TMPRSS2‐ERG), Homeobox C6 (HOXC6).

To be critical, this biomarker will need significant validation in other cohorts, and we can always hope for head‐to‐head data with existing strategies. I will remain optimistic these authors can move this biomarker strategy along and help bridge some of the gaps that remain in disease detection and risk stratification. I may even attempt to insert some of those lovely new equations in the methods section into future lectures.

Reference

  1. Connell SPYazbek‐Hanna MMcCarthy F et al. A four‐group urine risk classifier for predicting outcomes in patients with prostate cancer. BJU Int 2019124609– 20

BJUI in the news: prostate urine risk

A recent BJUI article, A four‐group urine risk classifier for predicting outcomes in patients with prostate cancerby Shea Connell and coworkers from Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital (NNUH) has been featured on various news outlets including the BBC and ITV in the UK following its online publication.

The article describes a new urine test, the Prostate Urine Risk, for predicting potentially aggressive prostate cancer meaning many men may avoid needing invasive biopsies and unnecessary treatment. It is likely to be one of a range of tests including blood tests and MRI scans which will enter routine clinical practice for prostate cancer diagnosis.

The research team was led by Prof Colin Cooper, Dr Daniel Brewer and Dr Jeremy Clark, all from the University of East Anglia’s Norwich Medical School, with the support and expertise of Rob Mills, Marcel Hanna and Prof Richard Ball at the NNUH.

Read the full article

Article of the Week: Evaluation of Sig24, a 24-gene signature

Every week the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

Finally, the third post under the Article of the Week heading on the homepage will consist of additional material or media. This week we feature a video discussing the paper.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Evaluation of a 24-gene signature for prognosis of metastatic events and prostate cancer-specific mortality

Kathryn L. Pellegrini*, Martin G. Sanda*, Dattatraya Patil*, Qi Long†‡§, MarıSantiago-Jimenez, Mandeep Takhar, Nicholas Erho, Kasra Youse, Elai DavicioniEric A. Klein**, Robert B. Jenkins††, R. Jeffrey Karnes‡‡ and Carlos S. Moreno§§§

 

*Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Winship Cancer Institute, Atlanta, GA‡ Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology and Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, §Department of Biomedical Informatics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA, GenomeDx Biosciences, Vancouver, BC, Canada, **Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, ††Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, ‡‡Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, and §§Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
Read the full article

How to Cite

Pellegrini, K. L., Sanda, M. G., Patil, D., Long, Q., Santiago-Jiménez, M., Takhar, M., Erho, N., Yousefi, K., Davicioni, E., Klein, E. A., Jenkins, R. B., Karnes, R. J. and Moreno, C. S. (2017), Evaluation of a 24-gene signature for prognosis of metastatic events and prostate cancer-specific mortality. BJU International, 119: 961–967. doi: 10.1111/bju.13779

Abstract

Objectives

To determine the prognostic potential of a 24-gene signature, Sig24, for identifying patients with prostate cancer who are at risk of developing metastases or of prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) after radical prostatectomy (RP).

Patients and Methods

Sig24 scores were calculated from previously collected gene expression microarray data from the Cleveland Clinic and Mayo Clinic (I and II). The performance of Sig24 was determined using time-dependent c-index analysis, Cox proportional hazards regression and Kaplan–Meier survival analysis.

aotw-jun-3-results

Results

Higher Sig24 scores were significantly associated with higher pathological Gleason scores in all three cohorts. Analysis of the Mayo Clinic II cohort, which included time-to-event information, indicated that patients with high Sig24 scores also had a higher risk of developing metastasis (hazard ratio [HR] 3.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.96–7.29; P < 0.001) or of PCSM (HR 6.54, 95% CI: 2.16–19.83; P < 0.001).

Conclusions

The findings of the present study show the applicability of Sig24 for the prognosis of metastasis or PCSM after RP. Future studies investigating the combination of Sig24 with available prognostic tests may provide new approaches to improve risk stratification for patients with prostate cancer.

Read more articles of the week

Editorial: Predicting outcome: role of gene signatures

Pathological assessments, such as Gleason grading, which is a strong clinical predictor of prostate cancer progression [1], have a role to play in predicting the outcome of a patient’s response to therapy. The addition of PSA and TNM staging are further used to inform appropriate treatment strategies in patients who are at low, intermediate and high risk of disease progression. Unfortunately, approximately 30% of men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer will fail to be cured by surgery or radiation therapy approaches. This is not surprising as primary prostate cancer represents a complex heterogeneous disease that is clearly not fully explained by the current clinical prognostic factors, and further molecular characterization is required. There is now significant emerging evidence that the molecular characterization of tumours is important to enable us to stratify prostate cancer patients by their response to primary therapy and to identify the next appropriate steps in their treatment pathway.

Long et al. [2] have identified gene signatures that can define different genomic subtypes of prostate cancer and are predictive of biochemical recurrence. Erho et al. [3] discovered and validated a 22-gene signature, which they termed a genomic classifier for the prediction of early metastasis after radical prostatectomy, while Penny et al. [4] have identified an mRNA expression signature of Gleason grade which is predictive of lethal prostate cancer.

Long et al. [2] identified a 24-gene signature, which they discovered through RNA sequencing analysis of 100 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded prostatectomy samples. They went on to validate their findings in a publically available independent gene expression microarray dataset of 140 patients. This 24-gene signature forms the basis of the present study by Pellegrini et al. [5], who refer to this gene signature as Sig24. In their study, they firstly undertook to determine if Sig24 was associated with pathological Gleason score as a marker of tumour aggressiveness, and then if it had prognostic value for the identification of patients at risk of metastasis or prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. The Gleason score association study was carried out using the data from three independent case–control sets, including 182 patients from the Cleveland Clinic and two cohorts (cohort I, n = 545; cohort II, n = 235) from the Mayo Clinic, for which gene expression analysis had previously been conducted by Genome Dx using the Affymetrix Human 1.0 ST Genechip platform. The Sig24 score was calculated for each patient and higher Gleason score was associated with significantly higher Sig24 scores. The association studies for metastatic disease and prostate cancer-specific mortality, however, were only carried out in the Mayo Clinic cohort II. For both clinical endpoints the Sig24 score combined with the clinical model outperformed the clinical model alone of PSA, Gleason score and tumour stage. For metastatic disease the area under the curve for the clinical model alone was 0.69 (0.62–0.77) compared with 0.73 (0.66–0.78) for the clinical model combined with Sig24. For the prostate cancer-specific mortality endpoint, the area under the curve for the clinical model alone was 0.69 (0.67–0.87) compared with 0.74 (0.63–0.85) for the clinical model combined with Sig24.

These gene signatures have significant potential for predicting the progression of disease rather than waiting for PSA relapse, which is currently used to identify disease recurrence, with interval to biochemical failure being the best univariate factor predicting prostate cancer mortality and overall survival [6]. This would allow the initiation of additional therapies before recurrence and a better outcome for the patient. This concept has been demonstrated in a study in which the use of the Decipher gene signature was shown to improve the identification of patients who could benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy and thus only these patients were targeted for therapy [7].

Incorporating these gene signatures in robust clinical assays and integrating them into clinical decision-making is the next essential step in order for these strategies to have an impact on patient outcomes.

Read the full article
Ronald W. Watson
UCD School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

References

1 Gleason DF. Classication of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother
Rep 1966; 50: 1258

 

 

4 Penny KL, Sinnott JA, Fall K et al. mRNA expression signature of Gleason grade predicts lethal prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29:23916

 

 

6 Buyyounouski MK, Pickles T, Kestin LL, Allison R, Williams SGValidating the interval to biochemical failure for identication of potentially lethal prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 185763

 

 

Video: Evaluation of a 24-gene signature for prognosis of metastatic events and PCa-specific mortality

Evaluation of a 24-gene signature for prognosis of metastatic events and prostate cancer-specific mortality

Kathryn L. Pellegrini*, Martin G. Sanda*, Dattatraya Patil*, Qi Long†‡§, MarıSantiago-Jimenez, Mandeep Takhar, Nicholas Erho, Kasra Youse, Elai DavicioniEric A. Klein**, Robert B. Jenkins††, R. Jeffrey Karnes
‡‡ and Carlos S. Moreno§§§

 

*Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Winship Cancer Institute, Atlanta, GA‡ Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology and Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, §Department of Biomedical Informatics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA, GenomeDx Biosciences, Vancouver, BC, Canada, **Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, ††Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, ‡‡Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, and §§Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
Read the full article

How to Cite

Pellegrini, K. L., Sanda, M. G., Patil, D., Long, Q., Santiago-Jiménez, M., Takhar, M., Erho, N., Yousefi, K., Davicioni, E., Klein, E. A., Jenkins, R. B., Karnes, R. J. and Moreno, C. S. (2017), Evaluation of a 24-gene signature for prognosis of metastatic events and prostate cancer-specific mortality. BJU International, 119: 961–967. doi: 10.1111/bju.13779

Abstract

Objectives

To determine the prognostic potential of a 24-gene signature, Sig24, for identifying patients with prostate cancer who are at risk of developing metastases or of prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) after radical prostatectomy (RP).

Patients and Methods

Sig24 scores were calculated from previously collected gene expression microarray data from the Cleveland Clinic and Mayo Clinic (I and II). The performance of Sig24 was determined using time-dependent c-index analysis, Cox proportional hazards regression and Kaplan–Meier survival analysis.

aotw-jun-3-results

Results

Higher Sig24 scores were significantly associated with higher pathological Gleason scores in all three cohorts. Analysis of the Mayo Clinic II cohort, which included time-to-event information, indicated that patients with high Sig24 scores also had a higher risk of developing metastasis (hazard ratio [HR] 3.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.96–7.29; P < 0.001) or of PCSM (HR 6.54, 95% CI: 2.16–19.83; P < 0.001).

Conclusions

The findings of the present study show the applicability of Sig24 for the prognosis of metastasis or PCSM after RP. Future studies investigating the combination of Sig24 with available prognostic tests may provide new approaches to improve risk stratification for patients with prostate cancer.

Read more articles of the week

Highlights from BAUS 2016

1.1

In the week following Britain’s exit from Europe after the BREXIT referendum, BAUS 2016 got underway in Liverpool’s BT convention Centre. This was the 72nd meeting of the British Association of Urological Surgeons and it was well attended with 1120 delegates (50% Consultant Member Urologists, 30% Trainees, 10% Non member Urologists/Other, 10% Nurses, HCP’S, Scientists).

1.2

Monday saw a cautionary session on medicolegal aspects in Andrology, focusing on lawsuits over the last year. Mr Mark Speakman presented on the management issue of testicular torsion. This sparked further discussion on emergency cover for paediatrics with particular uncertainty noted at 4 and 5 year olds and great variation in approach dependent on local trust policy. Mr Julian Shah noted the most litigious areas of andrology, with focus on cosmesis following circumcisions. Therefore serving a reminder on the importance of good consent to manage patients’ expectations.

1.3

In the Dragons’ Den, like the TV show, junior urologists pitched their ideas for collaborative research projects, to an expert panel. This year’s panel was made up of – Mark Emberton, Ian Pearce, and Graeme MacLennan. The session was chaired by Veeru Kasivisvanathan, Chair of the BURST Research Collaborative.

1.4

Eventual winner Ben Lamb, a trainee from London, presented “Just add water”. The pitch was for an RCT to investigate the efficacy of water irrigation following TURBT against MMC in reducing tumour recurrence. Ben proposed that water, with its experimental tumouricidal properties, might provide a low risk, low cost alternative as an adjuvant agent following TURBT. Judges liked the scientific basis for this study and the initial planning for an RCT. The panel discussed the merits of non-inferiority vs. superiority methodology, and whether the team might compare MMC to MMC with the addition of water, or water instead of MMC. They Dragons’ suggested that an initial focus group to investigate patients’ views on chemotherapy might help to focus the investigation and give credence to the final research question, important when making the next pitch- to a funding body, or ethics committee.

Other proposals were from Ryad Chebbout, working with Marcus Cumberbatch, an academic trainee from Sheffield. Proposing to address the current controversy over the optimal surgical technique for orchidopexy following testicular torsion. His idea involved conducting a systematic review, a national survey of current practice followed by a Delphi consensus meeting to produce evidence based statement of best practice. The final presentation was from Sophia Cashman, East of England Trainee for an RCT to assess the optimal timing for a TWOC after urinary retention. The panel liked the idea of finally nailing down an answer to this age-old question.

1.5

Waking up on Tuesday with England out of the European football cup as well as Europe the conference got underway with an update from the PROMIS trial (use of MRI to detect prostate cancer). Early data shows that multi-parametric MRI may be accurate enough to help avoid some prostate biopsies.

1.6

The SURG meeting provided useful information for trainees, with advice on progressing through training and Consultant interviews. A debate was held over run through training, which may well be returning in the future. The Silver cystoscope was awarded to Professor Rob Pickard voted for by the trainees in his deanery, for his devotion to their training.
Wednesday continued the debate on medical expulsion therapy (MET) for ureteric stones following the SUSPEND trial. Most UK Urologists seem to follow the results of the trial and have stopped prescribing alpha blockers to try and aid stone passage and symptoms. However the AUA are yet to adopt this stance and feel that a sub analysis shows some benefit for stones >5mm, although this is not significant and pragmatic outcomes. Assistant Professor John Hollingsworth (USA) argued for MET, with Professor Sam McClinton (UK) against. A live poll at the end of the session showed 62.9% of the audience persuaded to follow the SUSPEND trial evidence and stop prescribing MET.

1.7

In the debate of digital versus fibreoptic scopes for flexible ureteroscopy digital triumphed, but with a narrow margin.

1.8

In other updates and breaking news it appears that BCG is back! However during the shortage EMDA has shown itself to be a promising alternative in the treatment of high grade superficial bladder cancer.
The latest BAUS nephrectomy data shows that 90% are performed by consultant, with 16 on average per consultant per year. This raises some issues for registrar training, however with BAUS guidelines likely to suggest 20 as indicative numbers this is looking to be an achievable target for most consultants. Robotic advocates will be encouraged, as robotic partial nephrectomy numbers have overtaken open this year. The data shows 36% of kidney tumours in the under 40 years old are benign. Will we have to consider biopsying more often? However data suggests we should be offering more cytoreductive nephrectomies, with only roughly 1/10 in the UK performed compared to 3/10 in the USA.

1.91.10

The andrology section called for more recruitment to The MASTER trial (Male slings vs artificial urinary sphincters), whereas the OPEN trial has recruited(open urethroplasty vs optical urethotomy). In the treatment of Peyronie’s disease collagenase has been approved by NICE but not yet within the NHS.

Endoluminal endourology presentation showed big increases in operative numbers with ureteroscopy up by 50% and flexible ureteroscopy up by 100%. Stents on strings were advocated to avoid troubling stent symptoms experienced by most patients. New evidence may help provide a consensus on defining “stone free” post operation. Any residual stones post-operatively less than 2mm were shown to pass spontaneously and therefore perhaps may be classed as “stone free”.

Big changes seem likely in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia, with a race to replace the old favorite TURP. Trials have of TURP (mono and bipolar) vs greenlight laser are already showing similar 2 year outcomes with the added benefit of shorter hospital stays and less blood loss. UROLIFT is an ever more popular alternative with data showing superiority to TURP in lifestyle measures, likely because it preserves sexual function, and we are told it can be performed as a 15 minute day case operation. The latest new therapy is apparently “Aquabeam Aquablation”, using high pressured water to remove the prostate. Non surgical treatments are also advancing with ever more accurate super selective embolisation of the prostatic blood supply.

1.11

This year all accepted abstracts were presented in moderated EPoster sessions. The format was extremely successful removing the need for paper at future conferences? A total of 538 abstracts were submitted and 168 EPosters displayed. The winner of best EPoster was P5-5 Altaf Mangera: Bladder Cancer in the Neuropathic Bladder.

1.12

The best Academic Paper winner was Mark Salji of the CRUK Beatson institute, titled “A Urinary Peptide Biomarker Panel to Identify Significant Prostate Cancer”. Using capillary electrophoresis coupled to mass spectrometry (CE-MS) they analysed 313 urine samples from significant prostate cancer patients (Gleason 8-10 or T3/4 disease) and low grade control disease. They identified 94 peptide urine biomarkers which may provide a useful adjunct in identifying significant prostate cancer from insignificant disease.

The Office of Education offered 20 courses. Popular off-site courses were ultrasound for the Urologist, at Broadgreen Hospital, a slightly painful 30 min drive from the conference centre. However well worth the trip, delivered by Radiology consultants this included the chance to scan patients volunteers under guidance, with separate stations for kidneys, bladder and testicles and learning the “knobology” of the machines.

Organised by Tamsin Greenwell with other consultant experts in female, andrology and retroperitoneal cancer, a human cadaveric anatomy course was held at Liverpool university. The anatomy teaching was delivered by both Urology consultants and anatomists allowing for an excellent combination of theory and functional anatomy.

BAUS social events are renowned and with multiple events planned most evenings were pretty lively. The official drinks reception was held at the beautiful Royal Liver Building. The venue was stunning with great views over the waterfront and the sun finally shining. Several awards were presented including the Gold cystoscope to Mr John McGrath for significant contribution to Urology within 10 years appointment as consultant. The Keith Yeates medal was awarded to Mr Raj Pal, the most outstanding candidate in the first sitting of the intercollegiate specilaity examination, with a score of over 80%.

1.13

During the conference other BAUS awards presented include the St Peter’s medal was awarded to Margeret Knowles, Head of section of molecular oncology, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St James University hospital Leeds. The St Paul’s medal awarded to Professor Joseph A. Smith, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA. The Gold medal went to Mr. Tim Terry, Leicester General Hospital.

An excellent industry exhibition was on display, with 75 Exhibiting Companies present. My personal fun highlight was a flexible cystoscope with integrated stent remover, which sparked Top Gear style competiveness when the manufacturer set up a time-trial leaderboard. Obviously this best demonstrated the speed of stent removal with some interesting results…

1.14

Social media review shows good contribution daily.

1.15

1.16
Thanks BAUS a great conference, very well organised and delivered with a great educational and social content, looking forward to Glasgow 2017! #BAUS2017 #Glasgow #BAUSurology

Nishant Bedi

Specialist Training Registrar North West London 

Twitter: @nishbedi

 

© 2022 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.