Amanda E Hird

Dr. Amanda E Hird

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

19Years (2008-Present)

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

Representative Publications

View All Publications
8 November 2022 in BMJ Open
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RNRobert Nam
Robert Nam
CPChirag Patel
Chirag Patel
LMLaurent Milot
Laurent Milot
AHAmanda E Hird
Amanda E Hird
CWChristopher Wallis
Christopher Wallis
MHMasoom A Haider
Masoom A Haider
Objectives Our objective was to compare prostate cancer detection rates between patients undergoing serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) vs magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for prostate cancer screening. Design Phase III open-label randomised controlled trial. Setting Single tertiary cancer centre in Toronto, Canada. Participants Men 50 years of age and older with no history of PSA screening for ≥3 years, a negative digital rectal exam and no prior prostate biopsy. Interventions Patients were recommended to undergo a prostate biopsy if their PSA was ≥2.6 ng/mL (PSA arm) or if they had a PIRADS score of 4 or 5 (MRI arm). Patients underwent an end-of-study PSA in the MRI arm. Primary and secondary outcome measures Adenocarcinoma on prostate biopsy. Prostate biopsy rates and the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer were also compared. Results A total of 525 patients were randomised, with 266 in the PSA arm and 248 in the MRI arm. Due to challenges with accrual and study execution during the COVID-19 pandemic, the study was terminated early. In the PSA arm, 48 patients had an abnormal PSA and 28 (58%) agreed to undergo a prostate biopsy. In the MRI arm, 25 patients had a PIRADS score of 4 or 5 and 24 (96%) agreed to undergo a biopsy. The relative risk for MRI to recommend a prostate biopsy was 0.52 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.82, p=0.005), compared with PSA. The cancer detection rate for patients in the PSA arm was 29% (8 of 28) vs 63% (15 of 24, p=0.019) in the MRI arm, with a higher proportion of clinically significant cancer detected in the MRI arm (73% vs 50%). The relative risk for detecting cancer and clinically significant with MRI compared with PSA was 1.89 (95% CI 0.82 to 4.38, p=0.14) and 2.77 (95% CI 0.89 to 8.59, p=0.07), respectively. Conclusions Prostate MRI as a stand-alone screening test reduced the rate of prostate biopsy. The number of clinically significant cancers detected was higher in the MRI arm, but this did not reach statistical significance. Due to early termination, the study was underpowered. More patients were willing to follow recommendations for prostate biopsy based on MRI results. Trial registration number NCT02799303.

23 June 2021 in Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
KDKyle A. Dymanus
Kyle A. Dymanus
MBMohit Butaney
Mohit Butaney
DMDiana E. Magee
Diana E. Magee
AHAmanda E Hird
Amanda E Hird
ALAmy N. Luckenbaugh
Amy N. Luckenbaugh
CWChristopher Wallis
Christopher Wallis

19 December 2020 in Colorectal Disease
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
AHAmanda E Hird
Amanda E Hird
ANAndra Nica
Andra Nica
NCNatalie G. Coburn
Natalie G. Coburn
GKGirish S. Kulkarni
Girish S. Kulkarni
RNRobert K. Nam
Robert K. Nam
LGLilian Gien
Lilian Gien

1 October 2020 in Clinical Genitourinary Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
AHAmanda E Hird
Amanda E Hird
DMDiana E. Magee
Diana E. Magee
BBBimal Bhindi
Bimal Bhindi
XYXiang Y. Ye
Xiang Y. Ye
TCThenappan Chandrasekar
Thenappan Chandrasekar
CWChristopher Wallis
Christopher Wallis

2 September 2021 in BMJ Open
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
AHAmanda E Hird
Amanda E Hird
RSRefik Saskin
Refik Saskin
YLYing Liu
Ying Liu
YLYuna Lee
Yuna Lee
KAKhaled Ajib
Khaled Ajib
RNRobert K Nam
Robert K Nam
Objectives To compare the risk of bladder cancer and bladder cancer mortality among patients with chronic bladder catheterisation (indwelling or intermittent) to patients from the general population. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Population-based study in Ontario, Canada between 2003 and 2018. Participants Adult patients 18–90 years of age with chronic bladder catheterisation were hard matched to patients from the general population without a history of bladder catheterisation. Interventions The presence of a chronic catheter was defined as a minimum of two physician encounters for bladder catheterisation, suprapubic tube insertion or home care for catheter care separated by at least 28 days. Urinary tract infection (UTI) rates were collected. Main outcome measures Bladder cancer and bladder cancer-specific mortality after a 1-year lag period were compared between groups. Results We identified 36 903 patients with chronic catheterisation matched to 110 709 patients without a history of catheterisation. Patients were followed for a median of 8.8 years (IQR: 5.2–11.9 years). The median age was 62 years (IQR: 50–71) and 52% were female. More patients in the catheter group developed bladder cancer (393 (1.1%) vs 304 (0.3%),p<0.001). There were 106 (0.3%) bladder cancer deaths in the catheter group and 59 (0.1%) in the comparison group (p<0.001). Chronic catheterisation (adjusted subdistribution HR (sdHR)=4.80, 95% CI: 4.26 to 5.42,p<0.001) and the number of UTIs (adjusted sdHR=1.04 per UTI, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.05,p<0.001) were independent predictors of bladder cancer. The relative rate of bladder cancer-specific death was more than eightfold higher among patients with chronic catheterisation (adjusted sdHR=8.68, 95% CI: 6.97 to 10.81,p<0.001). Subgroup analysis among patients with neurogenic bladder and bladder calculi similarly revealed an increased risk of bladder cancer diagnosis and mortality. Bladder cancer risk was highest among patients in the two longest catheter duration quintiles (2.9–5.9 and 5.9–15.5 years). Conclusions This is the first study to quantify the increase in bladder cancer incidence and mortality in a large, diverse cohort of patients with chronic indwelling or intermittent bladder catheterisation. The risk was highest among patients with a chronic catheter beyond 2.9 years.

1 April 2021 in Clinical Genitourinary Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
AHAmanda E Hird
Amanda E Hird
DMDiana E. Magee
Diana E. Magee
DCDouglas C. Cheung
Douglas C. Cheung
BSBeate H Sander
Beate H Sander
SSSrikala S. Sridhar
Srikala S. Sridhar
GKGirish S. Kulkarni
Girish S. Kulkarni