Aref S. Sayegh

Dr. Aref S. Sayegh

Surgery, MedStar Franklin Square Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
+1
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

6Years (2021-Present)

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

Representative Publications

View All Publications
11 April 2022 in Advanced Materials
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
BMBrian McVerry
Brian McVerry
APAlexandra Polasko
Alexandra Polasko
EREthan Rao
Ethan Rao
RHReihaneh Haghniaz
Reihaneh Haghniaz
DCDayong Chen
Dayong Chen
Richard B. KanerRichard B. Kaner
Richard B. Kaner

20 February 2023 in Journal of Clinical Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MEMichael Eppler
Michael Eppler
ASAref S. Sayegh
Aref S. Sayegh
MMMarissa Maas
Marissa Maas
AVAbhishek Venkat
Abhishek Venkat
SHSij Hemal
Sij Hemal
Mitchell GoldenbergMitchell Goldenberg
Mitchell Goldenberg
Intraoperative adverse events (iAEs) impact the outcomes of surgery, and yet are not routinely collected, graded, and reported. Advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have the potential to power real-time, automatic detection of these events and disrupt the landscape of surgical safety through the prediction and mitigation of iAEs. We sought to understand the current implementation of AI in this space. A literature review was performed to PRISMA-DTA standards. Included articles were from all surgical specialties and reported the automatic identification of iAEs in real-time. Details on surgical specialty, adverse events, technology used for detecting iAEs, AI algorithm/validation, and reference standards/conventional parameters were extracted. A meta-analysis of algorithms with available data was conducted using a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the article risk of bias and clinical applicability. A total of 2982 studies were identified by searching PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore, with 13 articles included for data extraction. The AI algorithms detected bleeding (n = 7), vessel injury (n = 1), perfusion deficiencies (n = 1), thermal damage (n = 1), and EMG abnormalities (n = 1), among other iAEs. Nine of the thirteen articles described at least one validation method for the detection system; five explained using cross-validation and seven divided the dataset into training and validation cohorts. Meta-analysis showed the algorithms were both sensitive and specific across included iAEs (detection OR 14.74, CI 4.7–46.2). There was heterogeneity in reported outcome statistics and article bias risk. There is a need for standardization of iAE definitions, detection, and reporting to enhance surgical care for all patients. The heterogeneous applications of AI in the literature highlights the pluripotent nature of this technology. Applications of these algorithms across a breadth of urologic procedures should be investigated to assess the generalizability of these data.

1 January 2022 in Therapeutic Advances in Urology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
MKMasatomo Kaneko
Masatomo Kaneko
MLMaria Sarah L. Lenon
Maria Sarah L. Lenon
LRLorenzo Storino Ramacciotti
Lorenzo Storino Ramacciotti
LMLuis G. Medina
Luis G. Medina
ASAref S. Sayegh
Aref S. Sayegh
AAAndre Luis Abreu
Andre Luis Abreu
Recent advances in ultrasonography (US) technology established modalities, such as Doppler-US, HistoScanning, contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS), elastography, and micro-ultrasound. The early results of these US modalities have been promising, although there are limitations including the need for specialized equipment, inconsistent results, lack of standardizations, and external validation. In this review, we identified studies evaluating multiparametric ultrasonography (mpUS), the combination of multiple US modalities, for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis. In the past 5 years, a growing number of studies have shown that use of mpUS resulted in high PCa and clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa) detection performance using radical prostatectomy histology as the reference standard. Recent studies have demonstrated the role mpUS in improving detection of CSPCa and guidance for prostate biopsy and therapy. Furthermore, some aspects including lower costs, real-time imaging, applicability for some patients who have contraindication for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and availability in the office setting are clear advantages of mpUS. Interobserver agreement of mpUS was overall low; however, this limitation can be improved using standardized and objective evaluation systems such as the machine learning model. Whether mpUS outperforms MRI is unclear. Multicenter randomized controlled trials directly comparing mpUS and multiparametric MRI are warranted.

18 August 2023 in Scientific Reports
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MKMasatomo Kaneko
Masatomo Kaneko
LMLuis G. Medina
Luis G. Medina
MLMaria Sarah L. Lenon
Maria Sarah L. Lenon
SHSij Hemal
Sij Hemal
ASAref S. Sayegh
Aref S. Sayegh
AAAndre Luis Abreu
Andre Luis Abreu
The objective of this study was to compare transperineal (TP) versus transrectal (TR) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy (PBx). Consecutive men who underwent prostate MRI followed by a systematic biopsy. Additional target biopsies were performed from Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PIRADS) 3–5 lesions. Men who underwent TP PBx were matched 1:2 with a synchronous cohort undergoing TR PBx by PSA, Prostate volume (PV) and PIRADS score. Endpoint of the study was the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa; Grade Group ≥ 2). Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed. Results were considered statistically significant if p < 0.05. Overall, 504 patients met the inclusion criteria. A total of 168 TP PBx were pair-matched to 336 TR PBx patients. Baseline demographics and imaging characteristics were similar between the groups. Per patient, the CSPCa detection was 2.1% vs 6.3% (p = 0.4) for PIRADS 1–2, and 59% vs 60% (p = 0.9) for PIRADS 3–5, on TP vs TR PBx, respectively. Per lesion, the CSPCa detection for PIRADS 3 (21% vs 16%; p = 0.4), PIRADS 4 (51% vs 44%; p = 0.8) and PIRADS 5 (76% vs 84%; p = 0.3) was similar for TP vs TR PBx, respectively. However, the TP PBx showed a longer maximum cancer core length (11 vs 9 mm; p = 0.02) and higher cancer core involvement (83% vs 65%; p < 0.001) than TR PBx. Independent predictors for CSPCa detection were age, PSA, PV, abnormal digital rectal examination findings, and PIRADS 3–5. Our study demonstrated transperineal MRI/TRUS fusion PBx provides similar CSPCa detection, with larger prostate cancer core length and percent of core involvement, than transrectal PBx.

28 January 2023 in World Journal of Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Giovanni E. CacciamaniGiovanni E. Cacciamani
Giovanni E. Cacciamani
LMLuis G. Medina
Luis G. Medina
ASAref S. Sayegh
Aref S. Sayegh
ARAnibal La Riva
Anibal La Riva
LPLaura C. Perez
Laura C. Perez
Rene SoteloRene Sotelo
Rene Sotelo

1 October 2022 in Journal of Urology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
AAAidin Abedi
Aidin Abedi
ASAref S. Sayegh
Aref S. Sayegh
NHNhi T. Ha
Nhi T. Ha
ARAnibal La Riva
Anibal La Riva
LPLaura C. Perez
Laura C. Perez
EKEvgeniy I. Kreydin
Evgeniy I. Kreydin
Objective:The clinical, social, and economic impacts of neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD) on individuals and healthcare systems are thought to be immense, yet the true cost...