Tim Oliver

Prof. Tim Oliver


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

25Years (2002-Present)

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

Representative Publications

View All Publications
15 November 2002 in Journal of Clinical Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PWPadraig Warde
Padraig Warde
LSLena Specht
Lena Specht
AHAlan Horwich
Alan Horwich
TOTim Oliver
Tim Oliver
TPTony Panzarella
Tony Panzarella
HMHans von der Maase
Hans von der Maase
PURPOSE: Several management options are available to patients with stage I seminoma, including adjuvant radiotherapy, surveillance, and adjuvant chemotherapy. We performed a pooled analysis of patients from the four largest surveillance studies to better delineate prognostic factors associated with disease progression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual patient data were obtained from each center (Princess Margaret Hospital, Danish Testicular Cancer Study Group, Royal Marsden Hospital, and Royal London Hospital) for 638 patients. Tumor characteristics (size, histologic subtype, invasion of rete testis, and tumor invasion into small vessels [SVI]) as well as age at diagnosis were analyzed for prognostic importance for relapse. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 7.0 years (range, 0.02 to 17.5 years), 121 relapses were observed for an actuarial 5-year relapse-free rate (RFR) of 82.3%. On univariate analysis, tumor size (RFR: ≤ 4 cm, 87%; > 4 cm, 76%; P = .003), rete testis invasion (RFR: 86% [absent] v 77% [present], P = .003), and the presence of SVI (RFR: 86% [absent] v 77% [present], P = .038) were predictive of relapse. On multivariate analysis, tumor size (≤ 4 cm v > 4 cm, hazard ratio 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3 to 3.2) and invasion of the rete testis (hazard ratio 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.6) remained as important predictors for relapse. CONCLUSION: We have identified size of primary tumor and rete testis invasion as important prognostic factors for relapse in patients with stage I seminoma managed with surveillance. This information will allow patients and clinicians to choose management based on a more accurate assessment of an individual patient’s risk of relapse. In addition, it will allow clinicians to tailor follow-up protocols based on risk of occult disease.

1 March 2008 in European Urology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SKSusanne Krege
Susanne Krege
JBJörg Beyer
Jörg Beyer
RSRainer Souchon
Rainer Souchon
PAPeter Albers
Peter Albers
WAWalter Albrecht
Walter Albrecht
HMHans von der Maase
Hans von der Maase

1 March 2008 in European Urology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SKSusanne Krege
Susanne Krege
JBJörg Beyer
Jörg Beyer
RSRainer Souchon
Rainer Souchon
PAPeter Albers
Peter Albers
WAWalter Albrecht
Walter Albrecht
HMHans von der Maase
Hans von der Maase

1 June 2007 in European Urology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
TPTom Powles
Tom Powles
IMIain Murray
Iain Murray
CBCathryn Brock
Cathryn Brock
TOTim Oliver
Tim Oliver
NANorbert Avril
Norbert Avril

31 October 2006 in British Journal of Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
OGon behalf of the Transatlantic Prostate Group
on behalf of the Transatlantic Prostate Group
JCJ Cuzick
J Cuzick
GFG Fisher
G Fisher
MKMichael Kattan
Michael Kattan
DBD Berney
D Berney
PSP Scardino
P Scardino
Optimal management of clinically localised prostate cancer presents unique challenges, because of its highly variable and often indolent natural history. There is an urgent need to predict more accurately its natural history, in order to avoid unnecessary treatment. Medical records of men diagnosed with clinically localised prostate cancer, in the UK, between 1990 and 1996 were reviewed to identify those who were conservatively treated, under age 76 years at the time of pathological diagnosis and had a baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurement. Diagnostic biopsy specimens were centrally reviewed to assign primary and secondary Gleason grades. The primary end point was death from prostate cancer and multivariate models were constructed to determine its best predictors. A total of 2333 eligible patients were identified. The most important prognostic factors were Gleason score and baseline PSA level. These factors were largely independent and together, contributed substantially more predictive power than either one alone. Clinical stage and extent of disease determined, either from needle biopsy or transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) chips, provided some additional prognostic information. In conclusion, a model using Gleason score and PSA level identified three subgroups comprising 17, 50, and 33% of the cohort with a 10-year prostate cancer specific mortality of 30%, respectively. This classification is a substantial improvement on previous ones using only Gleason score, but better markers are needed to predict survival more accurately in the intermediate group of patients.

12 May 2005 in BJU International
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
TPThomas B. Powles
Thomas B. Powles
JBJateesh Bhardwa
Jateesh Bhardwa
JSJohnathan Shamash
Johnathan Shamash
SMSundhia Mandalia
Sundhia Mandalia
TOTim Oliver
Tim Oliver