Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where T. Briggs is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by T. Briggs.


British Journal of Cancer | 2017

The PICTURE study: diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men requiring a repeat prostate biopsy

Lucy Simmons; Abi Kanthabalan; Manit Arya; T. Briggs; Dean C. Barratt; Susan Charman; Alex Freeman; James Gelister; David J. Hawkes; Yipeng Hu; Charles Jameson; Neil McCartan; Caroline M. Moore; Shonit Punwani; Jan van der Meulen; Mark Emberton; Hashim U. Ahmed

Background:Transrectal prostate biopsy has limited diagnostic accuracy. Prostate Imaging Compared to Transperineal Ultrasound-guided biopsy for significant prostate cancer Risk Evaluation (PICTURE) was a paired-cohort confirmatory study designed to assess diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in men requiring a repeat biopsy.Methods:All underwent 3 T mpMRI and transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies (TTPM biopsies). Multiparametric MRI was reported using Likert scores and radiologists were blinded to initial biopsies. Men were blinded to mpMRI results. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as Gleason ⩾4+3 and/or cancer core length ⩾6 mm.Results:Two hundred and forty-nine had both tests with mean (s.d.) age was 62 (7) years, median (IQR) PSA 6.8 ng ml (4.98–9.50), median (IQR) number of previous biopsies 1 (1–2) and mean (s.d.) gland size 37 ml (15.5). On TTPM biopsies, 103 (41%) had clinically significant prostate cancer. Two hundred and fourteen (86%) had a positive prostate mpMRI using Likert score ⩾3; sensitivity was 97.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 92–99), specificity 21.9% (15.5–29.5), negative predictive value (NPV) 91.4% (76.9–98.1) and positive predictive value (PPV) 46.7% (35.2–47.8). One hundred and twenty-nine (51.8%) had a positive mpMRI using Likert score ⩾4; sensitivity was 80.6% (71.6–87.7), specificity 68.5% (60.3–75.9), NPV 83.3% (75.4–89.5) and PPV 64.3% (55.4–72.6).Conclusions:In men advised to have a repeat prostate biopsy, prostate mpMRI could be used to safely avoid a repeat biopsy with high sensitivity for clinically significant cancers. However, such a strategy can miss some significant cancers and overdiagnose insignificant cancers depending on the mpMRI score threshold used to define which men should be biopsied.


BJUI | 2015

Robot-assisted intracorporeal pyramid neobladder

Wei Shen Tan; Ashwin Sridhar; Miles Goldstraw; Evangelos Zacharakis; Senthil Nathan; John Hines; Paul Cathcart; T. Briggs; John D. Kelly

To describe a robot‐assisted intracorporeal pyramid neobladder reconstruction technique and report operative and perioperative metrics, postoperative upper tract imaging, neobladder functional outcomes, and oncological outcomes.


Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations | 2016

Analysis of open and intracorporeal robotic assisted radical cystectomy shows no significant difference in recurrence patterns and oncological outcomes.

Wei Shen Tan; Ashwin Sridhar; Gidon Ellis; Benjamin W. Lamb; Miles Goldstraw; Senthil Nathan; John Hines; Paul Cathcart; T. Briggs; John D. Kelly

OBJECTIVES To report and compare early oncological outcomes and cancer recurrence sites among patients undergoing open radical cystectomy (ORC) and robotic-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion (iRARC). METHODS AND MATERIALS A total of 184 patients underwent radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. ORC cases (n = 94) were performed between June 2005 and July 2014 while iRARC cases (n = 90) were performed between June 2011 and July 2014. Primary outcome was recurrence free survival (RFS). Secondary outcomes were sites of local and metastatic recurrence, cancer specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS Median follow-up for patients without recurrence was 33.8 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 20.5-45.4) for ORC; and 16.1 months (IQR: 11.2-27.0) for iRARC. No significant difference in age, sex, precystectomy T stage, precystectomy grade, or lymph node yield between ORC and iRARC was observed. The ORC cohort included more patients with≥pT2 (64.8% ORC vs. 38.9% iRARC) but fewer pT0 status (8.5% ORC vs.vs. 22.2% iRARC) due to lower preoperative chemotherapy use (22.3% ORC vs. 34.4% iRARC). Positive surgical margin rate was significantly higher in the ORC cohort (19.3% vs. 8.2%; P = 0.042). Kaplan-Meir analysis showed no significant difference in RFS (69.5% ORC vs. 78.8% iRARC), cancer specific survival (80.9% ORC vs. 84.4% iRARC), or OS (73.5% ORC vs.vs. iRARC 83.8%) at 24 months. Cox regression analysis showed RFS, cancer specific survival and OS were not influenced by cystectomy technique. No significant difference between local and metastatic RFS between ORC and iRARC was observed. CONCLUSION This study has found no difference in recurrence patterns or oncological outcomes between ORC and iRARC. Recurrent metastatic sites vary, but are not related to surgical technique.


Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations | 2016

Benefits of robotic cystectomy with intracorporeal diversion for patients with low cardiorespiratory fitness: A prospective cohort study

Benjamin W. Lamb; Wei Shen Tan; Philip Eneje; David Bruce; Amy Jones; Imran Ahmad; Ashwin Sridhar; Hilary Baker; T. Briggs; John Hines; Senthil Nathan; Daniel Martin; Robert C. Stephens; John D. Kelly

BACKGROUND Patients undergoing radical cystectomy have associated comorbidities resulting in reduced cardiorespiratory fitness. Preoperative cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) measures including anaerobic threshold (AT) can predict major adverse events (MAE) and hospital length of stay (LOS) for patients undergoing open and robotic cystectomy with extracorporeal diversion. Our objective was to determine the relationship between CPET measures and outcome in patients undergoing robotic radical cystectomy and intracorporeal diversion (intracorporeal robotic assisted radical cystectomy [iRARC]). METHODS A single institution prospective cohort study in patients undergoing iRARC for muscle invasive and high-grade bladder cancer. INCLUSION patients undergoing standardised CPET before iRARC. EXCLUSIONS patients not consenting to data collection. Data on CPET measures (AT, ventilatory equivalent for carbon dioxide [VE/VCO2] at AT, peak oxygen uptake [VO2]), and patient demographics prospectively collected. Outcome measurements included hospital LOS; 30-day MAE and 90-day mortality data, which were prospectively recorded. Descriptive and regression analyses were used to assess whether CPET measures were associated with or predicted outcomes. RESULTS From June 2011 to March 2015, 128 patients underwent radical cystectomy (open cystectomy, n = 17; iRARC, n = 111). A total of 82 patients who underwent iRARC and CPET and consented to participation were included. Median (interquartile range): age = 65 (58-73); body mass index = 27 (23-30); AT = 10.0 (9-11), Peak VO2 = 15.0 (13-18.5), VE/VCO2 (AT) = 33.0 (30-38). 30-day MAE = 14/111 (12.6%): death = 2, multiorgan failure = 2, abscess = 2, gastrointestinal = 2, renal = 6; 90-day mortality = 3/111 (2.7%). AT, peak VO2, and VE/VCO2 (at AT) were not significant predictors of 30-day MAE or LOS. The results are limited by the absence of control group undergoing open surgery. CONCLUSIONS Poor cardiorespiratory fitness does not predict increased hospital LOS or MAEs in patients undergoing iRARC. Overall, MAE and LOS comparable with other series.


Current Urology Reports | 2017

Training in Robotic Surgery—an Overview

Ashwin Sridhar; T. Briggs; John D. Kelly; Senthil Nathan

Purpose of ReviewThere has been a rapid and widespread adoption of the robotic surgical system with a lag in the development of a comprehensive training and credentialing framework. A literature search on robotic surgical training techniques and benchmarks was conducted to provide an evidence-based road map for the development of a robotic surgical skills for the novice robotic surgeon.Recent FindingsA structured training curriculum is suggested incorporating evidence-based training techniques and benchmarks for progress. This usually involves sequential progression from observation, case assisting, acquisition of basic robotic skills in the dry and wet lab setting along with achievement of individual and team-based non-technical skills, modular console training under supervision, and finally independent practice.SummaryRobotic surgical training must be based on demonstration of proficiency and safety in executing basic robotic skills and procedural tasks prior to independent practice.


Clinical Genitourinary Cancer | 2017

Port-Site Metastases After Robotic Radical Cystectomy: A Systematic Review and Management Options

Pramit Khetrapal; Wei Shen Tan; Benjamin W. Lamb; Senthil Nathan; T. Briggs; Arjun Shankar; Alex Freeman; Anita Mitra; John D. Kelly

Abstract Background: Port‐site metastases (PSMs) are a rare occurrence after robotic surgery. For robot‐assisted radical cystectomy (RARC), isolated cases have been reported but management has not been previously described. We present a case of PSM that occurred after RARC and report the results of our systematic review of previously reported PSMs and describe the treatment options. Search Criteria and Methods: We describe a case of a PSM in a 55‐year‐old man who had undergone intracorporeal RARC. We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE and Embase databases for previously reported PSMs, detailing the stage and grade of the primary tumor, time to presentation of PSM, treatment offered, and outcomes for the identified cases. Results: We identified 4 cases of PSMs after RARC in published studies and also included our case for analysis. All 5 patients had muscle‐invasive bladder cancer at cystectomy (stage ≥ T2) and 3 had local lymph node‐positive disease. Our aggressive treatment of chemotherapy, wide surgical excision of PSM, and radiotherapy provided our patient with a 2‐year disease‐free status. Conclusion: PSMs are a rare event in RARC, with only 4 other cases reported in published studies. The outcomes have not been well reported for these cases. We propose that multimodality treatment consisting of salvage chemotherapy, surgery, and radiotherapy should be considered, although concessions could be needed after consideration of patient factors.


Current Urology Reports | 2017

The Role of Robotics in the Invasive Management of Bladder Cancer

Pramit Khetrapal; Wei Shen Tan; Benjamin W. Lamb; Melanie Tan; Hilary Baker; J. Thompson; Ashwin Sridhar; John D. Kelly; T. Briggs

Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) has been adopted widely in many centres, owed largely to the success of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). It aims to replicate the oncological outcomes of open radical cystectomy (ORC), while providing a shorter recovery period. Despite this, previous RCTs have failed to show a benefit for RARC over ORC. These trials have compared extracorporeal RARC (eRARC) with ORC, which requires a further incision to mobilise the bowel for urinary reconstruction with an open technique. For intracorporeal RARC (iRARC), this urinary reconstruction is performed robotically without further incisions. There are theoretical benefits to this approach such as reduced recovery time for the bowel and reduced ileus rates, but no level 1 evidence currently exists to support this. While there has been an improvement in patient outcomes since the adoption of RARC, various other factors, such as enhanced recovery programmes and surgical learning curve, have made it difficult to attribute this solely to the robotic approach as many centres performing ORC have also shown similar improvements. In this review, we will discuss implementation of RARC as well as perioperative measures that have helped improve outcomes, offer a comparison of outcomes between ORC and RARC and highlight upcoming RCTs that may offer new evidence for or against a paradigm shift in the future of bladder cancer surgery.


The Prostate | 2018

Immunohistochemical biomarker validation in highly selective needle biopsy microarrays derived from mpMRI-characterized prostates

Jonathan Olivier; Vasilis Stavrinides; Jonathan Kay; Alex Freeman; Hayley Pye; Zeba Ahmed; Lina Maria Carmona Echeverria; Susan Heavey; Lucy Simmons; Abi Kanthabalan; Manit Arya; T. Briggs; Dean C. Barratt; Susan Charman; James Gelister; David J. Hawkes; Yipeng Hu; Charles Jameson; Neil McCartan; Shonit Punwani; Jan van der Muelen; Caroline M. Moore; Mark Emberton; Hashim U. Ahmed; Hayley C. Whitaker

Diagnosing prostate cancer routinely involves tissue biopsy and increasingly image guided biopsy using multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). Excess tissue after diagnosis can be used for research to improve the diagnostic pathway and the vertical assembly of prostate needle biopsy cores into tissue microarrays (TMAs) allows the parallel immunohistochemical (IHC) validation of cancer biomarkers in routine diagnostic specimens. However, tissue within a biopsy core is often heterogeneous and cancer is not uniformly present, resulting in needle biopsy TMAs that suffer from highly variable cancer detection rates that complicate parallel biomarker validation.


The Journal of Urology | 2018

Accuracy of Transperineal Targeted Prostate Biopsies, Visual Estimation and Image Fusion, in Men Needing Repeat Biopsy in the PICTURE Trial

Lucy Simmons; Abi Kanthabalan; Manit Arya; T. Briggs; Dean C. Barratt; Susan Charman; Alex Freeman; David J. Hawkes; Yipeng Hu; Charles Jameson; Neil McCartan; Caroline M. Moore; Shonit Punwani; Jan van der Muelen; Mark Emberton; Hashim U. Ahmed

Purpose: We evaluated the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies and compared visual estimation to image fusion targeting in patients requiring repeat prostate biopsies. Materials and Methods: The prospective, ethics committee approved PICTURE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01492270) enrolled 249 consecutive patients from January 11, 2012 to January 29, 2014. Men underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and were blinded to the results. All underwent transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies. In 200 men with a lesion this was preceded by visual estimation and image fusion targeted biopsies. As the primary study end point clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as Gleason 4 + 3 or greater and/or any grade of cancer with a length of 6 mm or greater. Other definitions of clinically significant prostate cancer were also evaluated. Results: Mean ± SD patient age was 62.6 ± 7 years, median prostate specific antigen was 7.17 ng/ml (IQR 5.25–10.09), mean primary lesion size was 0.37 ± 1.52 cc with a mean of 4.3 ± 2.3 targeted cores per lesion on visual estimation and image fusion combined, and a mean of 48.7 ± 12.3 transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy cores. Transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies detected 97 clinically significant prostate cancers (48.5%) and 85 insignificant cancers (42.5%). Overall multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies detected 81 clinically significant prostate cancers (40.5%) and 63 insignificant cancers (31.5%). In the 18 cases (9%) of clinically significant prostate cancer on magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies were benign or clinically insignificant on transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy. Clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 34 cases (17%) on transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy but not on magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies and approximately half was present in nontargeted areas. Clinically significant prostate cancer was found on visual estimation and image fusion in 53 (31.3%) and 48 (28.4%) of the 169 patients (McNemar test p = 0.5322). Visual estimation missed 23 clinically significant prostate cancers (13.6%) detected by image fusion. Image fusion missed 18 clinically significant prostate cancers (10.8%) detected by visual estimation. Conclusions: Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies are accurate for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer and reducing the over diagnosis of insignificant cancers. To maximize detection visual estimation as well as image fusion targeted biopsies are required.


Current Urology Reports | 2017

Learning Curves for Robotic Surgery: a Review of the Recent Literature

Giorgio Mazzon; Ashwin Sridhar; Gerald Busuttil; J. Thompson; Senthil Nathan; T. Briggs; John D. Kelly; Greg Shaw

Use of robot-assisted surgery is increasing since its advent in the 1990s. Robotic surgical training is the subject of much interest. Robotic technology would seem to facilitate training allowing more rapid attainment of competence. The safety and success of a particular surgical team depends on adequacy of training of its members. A learning curve is a way of describing the changes observed in surgical outcomes with increasing experience of the surgeon and can be used to plan training programs. The majority of published papers regarding learning curves are retrospective with small numbers of surgeons with different levels of experience comparing a variety of different outcomes. In this review, we describe the published literature on learning curves in robotic urological surgery, with the aim of offering a guide to both experienced and naïve surgeons who plan to learn new robotic procedure.

Collaboration


Dive into the T. Briggs's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

John D. Kelly

University College London

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Ashwin Sridhar

University College Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Benjamin W. Lamb

Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Wei Shen Tan

University College London

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Senthil Nathan

University College Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Greg Shaw

University of Cambridge

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

J. Thompson

University College Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

A. Mohammed

University College Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Alex Freeman

University College Hospital

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge