ArticleAmerican journal of men's health
Concurrent Jackstone Calculus and Prostate Cancer: Should They Be Treated Concurrently or Sequentially?
Article in American journal of men's health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Jackstone calculus is a rare urinary stone morphology with a distinctive spiculated appearance, most often reported in the bladder and usually associated with urinary stasis or outlet obstruction. We report a 70-year-old man with 1 year of progressive dysuria and intermittent interruption of urinary stream despite tamsulosin and finasteride. Urinalysis showed pyuria, hematuria, and bacteriuria. Ultrasonography and pelvic computed tomography identified an irregular star-shaped bladder stone and marked prostatic enlargement, with an estimated prostate volume of approximately 125 mL on ultrasonography. Serum total prostate-specific antigen was 16.2 ng/mL, with a free-to-total ratio of 0.138. Systematic transrectal biopsy showed adenocarcinoma in 2 of 12 cores, Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 (Grade Group 1). After multidisciplinary discussion, the patient underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with concomitant intact stone removal. The 3.1-cm stone showed classic jackstone morphology. Final pathology showed Gleason 3 + 4 = 7 adenocarcinoma (Grade Group 2), upgraded from biopsy, with negative surgical margins. Telephone follow-up at 1, 3, and 12 months showed sustained improvement of lower urinary tract symptoms without recurrent urinary tract infection-related symptoms. Postoperative imaging and prostate-specific antigen data were unavailable. This case is relevant to men's health because a visually distinctive bladder stone may coexist with clinically relevant prostatic disease. In men with lower urinary tract symptoms and abnormal prostate-specific antigen values, bladder outlet obstruction, infection, or bladder stones should not preclude further oncologic evaluation. In selected patients in whom definitive prostate surgery is chosen, combined stone removal can be a practical single-stage approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.