PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Jeffrey H Newhouse

Publications and source records attributed to Jeffrey H Newhouse.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Risk of nephropathy after intravenous administration of contrast material: a critical literature analysis.

PURPOSE: To assess the risk of nephropathy after administration of contrast material by reviewing the published literature on intravenous contrast material administration and by separating reports with appropriate control measures from those without such measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE database was searched for articles published from October 1966 to September 2004 that contained the phrases "contrast," "contrast medium," "contrast media," or "radiocontrast" and any of the words or phrases "nephrotoxicity," "nephropathy," kidney failure," or "renal failure." The identified publications were reviewed and limited to original clinical series. Studies were categorized according to the route of contrast material administration. Those in which an identifiable group of patients received contrast material intravenously were further evaluated to determine which studies compared results with those from a control group of patients who did not receive contrast material. RESULTS: Only 40 (1.3%) of 3081 publications had patients who received contrast material intravenously. Of these, only two publications had control groups of patients who received no contrast material. The incidence of postcontrast nephropathy in these two series was not substantially different from that in the control groups. CONCLUSION: Properly controlled clinical studies of intravenously administered radiographic contrast media fail to demonstrate renal damage.

Contrast Media↗
PubMed2004

Localization of neurovascular bundles on pelvic CT and evaluation of radiation dose to structures putatively involved in erectile dysfunction after prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: To (a) locate neurovascular bundles (NVB) on pelvic CT and (b) retrospectively evaluate relationships between radiation dose to structures putatively involved in prostate brachytherapy-induced erectile dysfunction (ED) and incidence of postbrachytherapy ED. METHODS AND MATERIALS: (a) Right/left NVB were identified on nine prostate MRIs. Structures visible on MRI and CT were cross-referenced. Cross-sectional area of each NVB was measured. (b) All patients treated with implant alone and whose treatment was planned on Variseed (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA), with follow-up of >12 months were included; n = 41. Median follow-up was 20 months. All patients were potent (+/- sildenafil) before implant (erection sufficient for intercourse). The right/left NVB (using results from part "a"), penile bulb, and right/left crus were outlined on postimplant CT. Volumes and doses to these structures were calculated. RESULTS: (a) On prostate MRI, NVB was consistently located where the prostate border bends away from the levator ani, at the gland's smallest radius of curvature. Average area of the circle best encompassing the NVB = 0.27 cm(2); diameter was 0.58 cm. (b) 11 of 41 (27%) patients had ED; 30 of 41 were potent (15 with sildenafil). There was no significant difference between potent/impotent patients in isotope, age, diabetes, hypertension, follow-up, or volume of prostate, bulb, right/left NVB, or right/left crus. There was a relationship between smoking and ED (p = 0.05). There was a relationship between bulb %D90 and ED: >10% 67% (4 of 6) vs. <10% 20% (7 of 35) (p = 0.03), which remained when controlling for smoking. There was no relationship between dose to left NVB and potency. There was paradoxical decreased risk of ED with right NVB %V100 >60% (p = 0.019), and right NVB %D60 >100% (p = 0.003). There was no relationship between dose to right/left crus and ED. CONCLUSIONS: A reliable method for localizing NVB on CT is demonstrated. There is no increased risk of prostate brachytherapy-induced ED with increasing dose to crus or NVB at the doses given in this study. There is a possible dose-response relationship between dose to the bulb and risk of ED.

Brachytherapy↗
PubMed2002

Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations.

PURPOSE: To (a) determine the performance of screening mammography, ultrasonography (US), and physical examination (PE); (b) analyze the influence of age, hormonal status, and breast density; (c) compare the size and stage of tumors detected with each modality; and (d) determine which modality or combination of modalities optimize cancer detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 11,130 asymptomatic women underwent 27,825 screening sessions, (mammography and subsequent PE). Women with dense breasts subsequently underwent screening US. Abnormalities were deemed positive if biopsy findings revealed malignancy and negative if findings from biopsy or all screening examinations were negative. RESULTS: In 221 women, 246 cancers were found. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values, and accuracy of mammography were 77.6%, 98.8%, 99.8%, 35.8%, and 98.6%, respectively; those of PE, 27.6%, 99.4%, 99.4%, 28.9%, and 98.8%, respectively; and those of US, 75.3%, 96.8%, 99.7%, 20.5%, and 96.6%, respectively. Screening breast US increased the number of women diagnosed with nonpalpable invasive cancers by 42% (30 of 71). Mammographic sensitivity declined significantly with increasing breast density (P <.01) (48% for the densest breasts) and in younger women with dense breasts (P =.02); the effects were independent. Mammography and US together had significantly higher sensitivity (97%) than did mammography and PE together (74%) (P <.001). Tumors detected at mammography and/or US were significantly smaller (P =.01) and of lower stage (P =.01) than those detected at PE. CONCLUSION: Mammographic sensitivity for breast cancer declines significantly with increasing breast density and is independently higher in older women with dense breasts. Addition of screening US significantly increases detection of small cancers and depicts significantly more cancers and at smaller size and lower stage than does PE, which detects independently extremely few cancers. Hormonal status has no significant effect on effectiveness of screening independent of breast density.

Age Factors↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Castleman's disease.

We present a case of retroperitoneal Castleman's disease of the hyaline vascular type, with unusual MR imaging findings, differing form reports to date, along with a review of the imaging findings in Castleman's disease.

Adult↗