Martha K. Terris

Bio: Martha K. Terris is an academic researcher from Georgia Regents University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Prostate cancer & Prostatectomy. The author has an hindex of 55, co-authored 375 publications receiving 12346 citations. Previous affiliations of Martha K. Terris include Johns Hopkins University & University of California, Los Angeles.

Impact of Obesity on Biochemical Control After Radical Prostatectomy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: A Report by the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital Database Study Group

Abstract: Purpose Given the limited information regarding the impact of obesity on treatment outcomes for prostate cancer, we sought to examine the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and cancer control after radical prostatectomy (RP). Patients and Methods We compared clinicopathologic and biochemical outcome information across BMI groups from 1,106 men treated with RP between 1988 and 2002. Multivariate analysis was used to determine if BMI significantly predicted adverse pathology or biochemical recurrence. Results Obesity was related to year of surgery (P < .001) and race (P < .001), with black men having the highest obesity rates. Obese patients had higher biopsy and pathologic grade tumors (P < .001). On multivariate analysis, BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 was associated with a trend for higher rates of positive surgical margins (P = .008). Overweight patients (BMI, 25 to 30 kg/m2) had a significantly decreased risk of seminal vesicle invasion (P = .039). After controlling for all preoperative clinical variables incl...

Obesity-related plasma hemodilution and PSA concentration among men with prostate cancer.

Abstract: ContextRecent studies have suggested that obese men have lower serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentrations than nonobese men. Because men with higher body mass index (BMI) have greater circulating plasma volumes, lower PSA concentrations among obese men may be due to hemodilution.ObjectiveTo determine the association between hemodilution and PSA concentration in obese men with prostate cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsRetrospective study of men who underwent radical prostatectomy for prostate adenocarcinoma from 1988 to 2006, using data from the databases of the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (n = 1373), Duke Prostate Center (n = 1974), and Johns Hopkins Hospital (n = 10 287). Multivariate linear regression models adjusting for clinicopathological characteristics were used to analyze the main outcome measures.Main Outcome MeasuresAssociations between BMI and mean adjusted PSA concentrations, mean plasma volume, and mean adjusted PSA mass (total circulating PSA protein, calculated as PSA concentration multiplied by plasma volume), assessed by determining P values for trend.ResultsAfter controlling for clinicopathological characteristics, higher BMI was significantly associated with higher plasma volume (P < .001 for trend) and lower PSA concentrations (P ≤ .02 for trend) in all cohorts. In 2 of the 3 cohorts, PSA mass did not change significantly with increasing BMI. In the third cohort, higher BMI was associated with increased PSA mass (P < .001 for trend), but only between BMI category less than 25 and the other categories.ConclusionsIn men undergoing radical prostatectomy, higher BMI was associated with higher plasma volume; hemodilution may therefore be responsible for the lower serum PSA concentrations among obese men with prostate cancer. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate this association in screened populations.

Medscape

Abstract: Secret History: Return of the Black Death Channel 4, 7-8pm In 1348 the Black Death swept through London, killing people within days of the appearance of their first symptoms. Exactly how many died, and why, has long been a mystery. This Secret History documentary follows experts as they pick through the evidence and reveal why the plague killed on such a scale. And they ask, what might be coming next?

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

Abstract: Background Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty. Objectives To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions. Search methods For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008). Selection criteria We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were: A) 'choice made' attributes; B) 'decision-making process' attributes. Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model. Main results This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each. Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies). A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes: Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13). B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes: Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in: a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18); b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18). Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice. C) Secondary outcomes Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable. The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive. Authors' conclusions There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values. New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

Overweight, obesity and cancer: epidemiological evidence and proposed mechanisms

Abstract: The prevalence of obesity is rapidly increasing globally. Epidemiological studies have associated obesity with a range of cancer types, although the mechanisms by which obesity induces or promotes tumorigenesis vary by cancer site. These include insulin resistance and resultant chronic hyperinsulinaemia, increased bioavailability of steroid hormones and localized inflammation. Gaining a better understanding of the relationship between obesity and cancer can provide new insight into mechanisms of cancer pathogenesis.