Max S Pitman

Publications (2)6.86 Total impact

• Article: Effect of delaying surgery on radical prostatectomy outcomes: a contemporary analysis.

  Ruslan Korets, Catherine M Seager, Max S Pitman, Gregory W Hruby, Mitchell C Benson, James M McKiernan
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Study Type - Therapy (case series). Level of Evidence 4. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? For patients electing surgical treatment, the question of the effect of surgical delay on clinical outcomes in prostate cancer is controversial. In this study we examined the effect of delay from diagnosis to surgery on outcomes in men with localized prostate cancer and found no association between time to surgery and risk of biochemical recurrence, even for patients with longer delays and high-risk disease. Men with localized prostate cancer can be reassured that reasonable delays in treatment will not influence disease outcomes. • To examine the effect of time from last positive biopsy to surgery on clinical outcomes in men with localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). • We conducted a retrospective review of 2739 men who underwent RP between 1990 and 2009 at our institution. • Clinical and pathological features were compared between men undergoing RP ≤ 60, 61-90 and >90 days from the time of prostate biopsy. • A Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyse the association between clinical features and surgical delay with biochemical progression. Biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free rates were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. • Of the 1568 men meeting the inclusion criteria, 1098 (70%), 303 (19.3%) and 167 (10.7%) had a delay of ≤ 60, 61-90 and >90 days, respectively, between biopsy and RP. A delay of >60 days was not associated with adverse pathological findings at surgery. • The 5-year survival rate was similar among the three groups (78-85%, P= 0.11). • In a multivariate Cox model, men with higher PSA levels, clinical stages, Gleason sums, and those of African-American race were all at higher risk for developing BCR. • A delay to surgery of >60 days was not associated with worse biochemical outcomes in a univariate and multivariate model. • A delay of >60 days is not associated with adverse pathological outcomes in men with localized prostate cancer, nor does it correlate with worse BCR-free survival. • Patients can be assured that delaying treatment while considering therapeutic options will not adversely affect their outcomes.
  BJU International 11/2011; 110(2):211-6. · 2.84 Impact Factor
• Article: Vitamin D deficiency in the urological population: a single center analysis.

  Max S Pitman, Philippa J Cheetham, Gregory W Hruby, Aaron E Katz
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Vitamin D has a well-known role in calcium metabolism and bone health. It may also help prevent a number of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes and malignancies such as breast, colorectal and prostate cancer. To our knowledge the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency has never been reported in the general urological population. We evaluated the vitamin D status of this population at a large academic center. We retrospectively reviewed the records of 3,763 male and female patients from a urology database at a single academic institution. Patients were identified whose levels of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D were measured for the first time between 1997 and 2010. We determined the prevalence of normal--greater than 30, insufficient--20 to 29 and deficient--less than 20 ng/ml 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for vitamin D deficiency. Overall 2,559 patients (68%) had suboptimal 25-hydroxyvitamin D (less than 30 ng/ml), of whom 1,331 (52%) were frankly deficient (less than 20 ng/ml) in the vitamin. Vitamin D deficiency was more common in patients younger than age 50 years (44.5%), black (53.2%) and Hispanic (41.6%) patients (p <0.001), and patients without an existing urological malignancy (35.4%, p <0.001). On multivariate analysis race, age, season and cancer diagnosis were independent predictors of vitamin D status. Vitamin D deficiency is extremely common in urological patients at a major urban medical center. Urologists should consider recommending appropriate supplementation during the initial assessment of all patients.
  The Journal of urology 08/2011; 186(4):1395-9. · 4.02 Impact Factor