Lazaros Tzelves

Dr. Lazaros Tzelves

2nd Department of Urology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Sismanogleion Hospital, 11526 Athens, Greece
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

8Years (2019-Present)

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

Representative Publications

View All Publications
16 February 2024 in Journal of Clinical Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MAMahir Akram
Mahir Akram
VJVictoria Jahrreiss
Victoria Jahrreiss
ASAndreas Skolarikos
Andreas Skolarikos
RGRobert Geraghty
Robert Geraghty
LTLazaros Tzelves
Lazaros Tzelves
BSBhaskar K Somani
Bhaskar K Somani
Background: Evidence-based guidelines are published by urological organisations for various conditions, including urolithiasis. In this paper, we provide guidance on the management of kidney stone disease (KSD) and compare the American Urological Association (AUA) and European Association of Urologists (EAU) guidelines. Methods: We evaluate and appraise the evidence and grade of recommendation provided by the AUA and EAU guidelines on urolithiasis (both surgical and medical management). Results: Both the AUA and EAU guidelines provide guidance on the type of imaging, treatment options, and medical therapies and advice on specific patient groups, such as in paediatrics and pregnancy. While the guidelines are generally aligned and based on evidence, some subtle differences exist in the recommendations, but both are generally unanimous for the majority of the principles of management. Conclusions: We recommend that the guidelines should undergo regular updates based on recently published material, and while these guidelines provide a framework, treatment plans should still be personalised, respecting patient preferences, surgical expertise, and various other individual factors, to offer the best outcome for kidney stone patients.

8 July 2024 in BJUI Compass
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
LTLazaros Tzelves
Lazaros Tzelves
RGRobert Geraghty
Robert Geraghty
PJPatrick Juliebø-Jones
Patrick Juliebø-Jones
YYYuhong Yuan
Yuhong Yuan
KKKonstantinos Kapriniotis
Konstantinos Kapriniotis
BSBhaskar K Somani
Bhaskar K Somani
Objectives: Ureterorenoscopy is seeing a bloom of technological advances, one of which is incorporating suction. The objective of this study is to systematically review existing literature regarding suction use in rigid and flexible ureterorenoscopy and perform meta‐analysis of studies comparing suction versus no suction ureteroscopy or mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).Methods: A literature search was performed (November 2023) in MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL. Study protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023482360). Comparative studies (observational and randomized) were eligible for inclusion if they compared suction versus no suction group and reported at least one primary outcome of interest (stone‐free or complication rate).Results: Sixteen studies (5 randomized and 11 observational), analysing 1086 and 1109 patients in standard and suction groups, respectively, were included. Final stone‐free rates (SFRs), overall and infectious complications and length of hospital stay exhibited significant improvement when suction was used. When mini‐PCNL was compared with flexible ureterorenoscopy with suction, no differences were found in terms of stone‐free and infectious complications rates.Conclusions: Ureterorenoscopy is a commonly performed endoscopic procedure for urolithiasis treatment, the success of which is defined by SFRs and complication rates. Application of suction via ureteral access sheaths, ureteral catheters or scopes may provide improved SFRs, reduced overall and infectious complication rates, along with a reduction in length of hospital stay. Further randomized studies are needed to validate these findings and standardize indications and protocols.

16 February 2024 in Cancers
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
GEORGIOS FERETZAKISGEORGIOS FERETZAKIS
GEORGIOS FERETZAKIS
PJPatrick Juliebø-Jones
Patrick Juliebø-Jones
ATArman Tsaturyan
Arman Tsaturyan
TSTarik Emre Sener
Tarik Emre Sener
VVVassilios S. Verykios
Vassilios S. Verykios
LTLazaros Tzelves
Lazaros Tzelves
This comprehensive review critically examines the transformative impact of artificial intelligence (AI) and radiomics in the diagnosis, prognosis, and management of bladder, kidney, and prostate cancers. These cutting-edge technologies are revolutionizing the landscape of cancer care, enhancing both precision and personalization in medical treatments. Our review provides an in-depth analysis of the latest advancements in AI and radiomics, with a specific focus on their roles in urological oncology. We discuss how AI and radiomics have notably improved the accuracy of diagnosis and staging in bladder cancer, especially through advanced imaging techniques like multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and CT scans. These tools are pivotal in assessing muscle invasiveness and pathological grades, critical elements in formulating treatment plans. In the realm of kidney cancer, AI and radiomics aid in distinguishing between renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subtypes and grades. The integration of radiogenomics offers a comprehensive view of disease biology, leading to tailored therapeutic approaches. Prostate cancer diagnosis and management have also seen substantial benefits from these technologies. AI-enhanced MRI has significantly improved tumor detection and localization, thereby aiding in more effective treatment planning. The review also addresses the challenges in integrating AI and radiomics into clinical practice, such as the need for standardization, ensuring data quality, and overcoming the “black box” nature of AI. We emphasize the importance of multicentric collaborations and extensive studies to enhance the applicability and generalizability of these technologies in diverse clinical settings. In conclusion, AI and radiomics represent a major paradigm shift in oncology, offering more precise, personalized, and patient-centric approaches to cancer care. While their potential to improve diagnostic accuracy, patient outcomes, and our understanding of cancer biology is profound, challenges in clinical integration and application persist. We advocate for continued research and development in AI and radiomics, underscoring the need to address existing limitations to fully leverage their capabilities in the field of oncology.

Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Nikolaos TheodorakisNikolaos Theodorakis
Nikolaos Theodorakis
GEORGIOS FERETZAKISGEORGIOS FERETZAKIS
GEORGIOS FERETZAKIS
LTLazaros Tzelves
Lazaros Tzelves
EPEVGENIA PAXINOU
EVGENIA PAXINOU
CHCHRISTOS HITAS
CHRISTOS HITAS
MNMARIA NIKOLAOU
MARIA NIKOLAOU
Aging is a fundamental biological process characterized by a progressive decline in physiological functions and an increased susceptibility to diseases. Understanding aging at the molecular level is crucial for developing interventions that could delay or reverse its effects. This review explores the integration of machine learning (ML) with multi-omics technologies—including genomics, transcriptomics, epigenomics, proteomics, and metabolomics—in studying the molecular hallmarks of aging to develop personalized medicine interventions. These hallmarks include genomic instability, telomere attrition, epigenetic alterations, loss of proteostasis, disabled macroautophagy, deregulated nutrient sensing, mitochondrial dysfunction, cellular senescence, stem cell exhaustion, altered intercellular communication, chronic inflammation, and dysbiosis. Using ML to analyze big and complex datasets helps uncover detailed molecular interactions and pathways that play a role in aging. The advances of ML can facilitate the discovery of biomarkers and therapeutic targets, offering insights into personalized anti-aging strategies. With these developments, the future points toward a better understanding of the aging process, aiming ultimately to promote healthy aging and extend life expectancy.

26 May 2022 in World Journal of Urology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
LTLazaros Tzelves
Lazaros Tzelves
LLLazaros Lazarou
Lazaros Lazarou
GEORGIOS FERETZAKISGEORGIOS FERETZAKIS
GEORGIOS FERETZAKIS
Dimitris KallesDimitris Kalles
Dimitris Kalles
PMPANAGIOTIS MOURMOURIS
PANAGIOTIS MOURMOURIS
IVIoannis Varkarakis
Ioannis Varkarakis

Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
STSenol Tonyali
Senol Tonyali
MYMehmet Yilmaz
Mehmet Yilmaz
LTLazaros Tzelves
Lazaros Tzelves
EEEsteban Emiliani
Esteban Emiliani
VCVincent De Coninck
Vincent De Coninck
AMArkadiusz Miernik
Arkadiusz Miernik
Background: The stricture-formation rate following ureteroscopy ranges from 0.5 to 5% and might amount to 24% in patients with impacted ureteral stones. The pathogenesis of ureteral stricture formation is not yet fully understood. It is likely that the patient and stone characteristics, as well as intervention factors, play a role in this process. In this systematic review, we aimed to determine the potential factors responsible for ureteral stricture formation in patients having impacted ureteral stones. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) criteria, we conducted systematic online research through PubMed and Web of Science without a time restriction, applying the keywords “ureteral stone”, “ureteral calculus”, “impacted stone”, “ureteral stenosis”, “ureteroscopic lithotripsy”, “impacted calculus”, and “ureteral strictures” singly or in combination. Results: After eliminating non-eligible studies, we identified five articles on ureteral stricture formation following treatment of impacted ureteral stones. Ureteral perforation and/or mucosal damage appeared as key predictors of ureteral stricture following retrograde ureteroscopy (URS) for impacted ureteral stones. Besides ureteral perforation stone size, embedded stone fragments into the ureter during lithotripsy, failed URS, degree of hydronephrosis, nephrostomy tube or double-J stent (DJS)/ureter catheter insertion were also suggested factors leading to ureteral strictures. Conclusion: Ureteral perforation during surgery might be considered the main risk factor for ureteral stricture formation following retrograde ureteroscopic stone removal for impacted ureteral stones.