John Thomas Helgstrand

John Thomas Helgstrand


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

11Years (2016-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
3 May 2018 in Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
John Thomas HelgstrandJohn Thomas Helgstrand
John Thomas Helgstrand
Martin Andreas RøderMartin Andreas Røder
Martin Andreas Røder
NKNina Klemann
Nina Klemann
BTBirgitte G. Toft
Birgitte G. Toft
DLDaphne Y. Lichtensztajn
Daphne Y. Lichtensztajn
PIPeter Iversen
Peter Iversen

1 October 2017 in European Journal of Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
John Thomas HelgstrandJohn Thomas Helgstrand
John Thomas Helgstrand
Martin Andreas RøderMartin Andreas Røder
Martin Andreas Røder
NKNina Klemann
Nina Klemann
BTBirgitte Grønkær Toft
Birgitte Grønkær Toft
KBKlaus Brasso
Klaus Brasso
PIPeter Iversen
Peter Iversen

1 September 2016 in Clinical Epidemiology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
John Thomas HelgstrandJohn Thomas Helgstrand
John Thomas Helgstrand
NKNina Klemann
Nina Klemann
Martin Andreas RøderMartin Andreas Røder
Martin Andreas Røder
BTBirgitte G. Toft
Birgitte G. Toft
KBKlaus Brasso
Klaus Brasso
PIPeter Iversen
Peter Iversen
Background: Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine (SNOMED) codes are computer-processable medical terms used to describe histopathological evaluations. SNOMED codes are not readily usable for analysis. We invented an algorithm that converts prostate SNOMED codes into an analyzable format. We present the methodology and early results from a new national Danish prostate database containing clinical data from all males who had evaluation of prostate tissue from 1995 to 2011. Materials and methods: SNOMED codes were retrieved from the Danish Pathology Register. A total of 26,295 combinations of SNOMED codes were identified. A computer algorithm was developed to transcode SNOMED codes into an analyzable format including procedure (eg, biopsy, transurethral resection, etc), diagnosis, and date of diagnosis. For validation, ~55,000 pathological reports were manually reviewed. Prostate-specific antigen, vital status, causes of death, and tumor-node-metastasis classification were integrated from national registries. Results: Of the 161,525 specimens from 113,801 males identified, 83,379 (51.6%) were sets of prostate biopsies, 56,118 (34.7%) were transurethral/transvesical resections of the prostate (TUR-Ps), and the remaining 22,028 (13.6%) specimens were derived from radical prostatectomies, bladder interventions, etc. A total of 48,078 (42.2%) males had histopathologically verified prostate cancer, and of these, 78.8% and 16.8% were diagnosed on prostate biopsies and TUR-Ps, respectively. Future perspectives: A validated algorithm was successfully developed to convert complex prostate SNOMED codes into clinical useful data. A unique database, including males with both normal and cancerous histopathological data, was created to form the most comprehensive national prostate database to date. Potentially, our algorithm can be used for conversion of other SNOMED data and is available upon request.

17 August 2022 in Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
MHMaria Hilscher
Maria Hilscher
ARAndreas Røder
Andreas Røder
John Thomas HelgstrandJohn Thomas Helgstrand
John Thomas Helgstrand
NKNina Klemann
Nina Klemann
KBKlaus Brasso
Klaus Brasso
HSHein Stroomberg
Hein Stroomberg
Background: The oncological risks after benign histology on a transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) remain largely unknown. Here, the risk of prostate cancer incidence and mortality following a benign histological assessment of TURP is investigated in a population‐based setting.Methods: Between 1995 and 2016, 64,059 men in Denmark underwent TURP without prior biopsy of the prostate; 42,558 of these men had benign histology. The risks of prostate cancer, prostate cancer with a Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4, and prostate cancer–specific death were assessed with competing risks. Specific risks for pre‐TURP prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) levels at 10 and 15 years were visualized by locally estimated scatterplot smoothing.Results: The median age at TURP was 72 years (interquartile range [IQR], 65–78 years), and the median follow‐up was 15 years (IQR, 10–19 years). The 10‐year risks of any prostate cancer and prostate cancer with a Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4 and the 15‐year risk of prostate cancer death showed clear visual relations with increasing PSA. The 15‐year cumulative incidence of prostate cancer–specific death after benign TURP was 1.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3%–1.6%) for all men and 0.8% (95% CI, 0.6%–1.1%) for men with PSA levels <10 ng/ml. The primary limitation was exclusion due to missing PSA data.Conclusions: Men with low PSA levels and a benign TURP can be reassured about their cancer risk and do not need to be monitored differently than any other men. Patients with high PSA levels can be considered for further follow‐up with prostate magnetic resonance imaging. These findings add to the literature suggesting that normal histology from the prostate entails a low risk of death from the disease.Lay summary: There is little knowledge about the oncological risks after the surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. This study shows a very low risk of adverse oncological outcomes in men with prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) levels below 10 ng/ml at the time of transurethral resection of the prostate. Patients with higher PSA levels may need more extensive follow‐up.

25 February 2022 in Journal of Urology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SKSandra Miriam Kawa
Sandra Miriam Kawa
HSHein Stroomberg
Hein Stroomberg
SLSigne Benzon Larsen
Signe Benzon Larsen
John Thomas HelgstrandJohn Thomas Helgstrand
John Thomas Helgstrand
BTBirgitte Grønkær Toft
Birgitte Grønkær Toft
Martin Andreas RøderMartin Andreas Røder
Martin Andreas Røder
Purpose:MRI targeted prostate biopsy has been shown to find many high-grade prostate cancers in men with concurrent negative transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) systematic biopsy. The oncologic risk of s...

18 December 2020 in BMJ Open
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SKSandra Miriam Kawa
Sandra Miriam Kawa
SLSigne Benzon Larsen
Signe Benzon Larsen
John Thomas HelgstrandJohn Thomas Helgstrand
John Thomas Helgstrand
PIPeter Iversen
Peter Iversen
KBKlaus Brasso
Klaus Brasso
Martin Andreas RøderMartin Andreas Røder
Martin Andreas Røder
Objective To investigate the risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) following initial negative systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) prostate biopsies. Design Systematic review. Data sources PubMed and Embase were searched using a string combination with keywords/Medical Subject Headings terms and free text in the search builder. Date of search was 13 April 2020. Study selection Studies addressing PCSM following initial negative TRUS biopsies. Randomised controlled trials and population-based studies including men with initial negative TRUS biopsies reported in English from 1990 until present were included. Data extraction Data extraction was done using a predefined form by two authors independently and compared with confirm data; risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for cohort studies when applicable. Results Four eligible studies were identified. Outcomes were reported differently in the studies as both cumulative incidence and Kaplan-Meier estimates have been used. Regardless of the study differences, all studies reported low estimated incidence of PCSM of 1.8%–5.2% in men with negative TRUS biopsies during the following 10–20 years. Main limitation in all studies was limited follow-up. Conclusion Only a few studies have investigated the risk of PCSM following initial negative biopsies and all studies included patients before the era of MRI of the prostate. However, the studies point to the fact that the risk of PCSM is low following initial negative TRUS biopsies, and that the level of prostate-specific antigen before biopsies holds prognostic information. This may be considered when advising patients about the need for further diagnostic evaluation. PROSPERO registration number CRD42019134548.