Samir S. Taneja, MD

Samir S. Taneja, MD

NYU Grossman School of Medicine

New York, New York

Dr. Samir S. Taneja is the James M. Neissa and Janet Riha Neissa Professor of Urologic Oncology in the Department of Urology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, as well as the Vice Chair of Urology and Director of Urologic Oncology at NYU Langone Health. When Dr. Taneja first joined NYU Langone he focused broadly on urologic oncology, treating people with cancers of the prostate, kidney, bladder, and testis. Now, about 70 percent of his practice focuses on prostate cancer or the suspicion of prostate cancer. The work Dr. Taneja has been able to conduct at NYU Langone and its Perlmutter Cancer Center and Smilow Comprehensive Prostate Cancer Center has transformed the field of prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment by improving methods of prostate imaging, cancer detection, and disease localization. Dr. Taneja strives to integrate new technologies into his practice to evolve the practice of oncology. This has allowed him to care for prostate cancer patients individually by avoiding surgery or radiation when not needed, and using new targeted approaches to treat the disease when possible. Dr. Taneja's clinical research focuses on the use of imaging to detect and treat prostate cancer. He pioneered the use of MRI to diagnose and pinpoint prostate cancer, and in MRI-guided focal ablative therapies that aim to destroy only the cancerous portion of the prostate. He has authored more than 200 articles, 30 book chapters, and 6 textbooks and monographs on urologic cancer and surgery. In addition, he is the editor of Taneja’s Complications of Urologic Surgery: Prevention and Diagnosis, one of the most widely read textbooks in American urology.

Disclosures:

Consultant for:
Francis Medical
Exact Imaging
Exact Medical/Genomic Health
Lantheus/Progenics

Scientific Investigator for:
MDx Health

Talks by Samir S. Taneja, MD

Selecting the Optimal Energy Source

Selecting the Optimal Energy Source

Posted by | Mar 2024

Samir S. Taneja, MD, compares the merits and limitations of the leading energy sources used in prostate focal ablation. The sources available for use in prostate ablation today include laser, electroporation, radiofrequency, photodynamic therapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), cryosurgery, drugs/toxins, radiations (focal/interstitial), surgery, steam, and gold nanoparticles.

Dr. Taneja outlines the ideal criteria for an energy source based on the individual characteristics of the patient and their disease, as well as real-world considerations like ease of use and insurance coverage. He gives examples of which energy sources are best-suited for certain cases based on disease presentation and other factors.

In a full focal therapy practice, the optimal situation would be one with multiple energy sources available so that physicians can tailor treatments to each individual patient. Since this saturation of options can be daunting to physicians just starting in a focal therapy program, Dr. Taneja advises practitioners to pick one energy source to practice at first, limiting patient selection to those with disease that is best-treated with that specific modality. After becoming proficient with that energy source, more can be added to increase candidate selection.

Read More

How to Utilize MRI for Focal Therapy Planning

Posted by | May 2022

Samir S. Taneja, MD, the James M. Neissa and Janet Riha Neissa Professor of Urologic Oncology, Co-Director of the Smilow Comprehensive Prostate Cancer Center, and Vice Chair of the Department of Urology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, discusses how to use MRI in planning and doing follow-up on focal therapy for prostate cancer. He begins by introducing the critical decisions in focal therapy implementation, including candidate selection, method of disease mapping/identification, choice of energy, and manner of follow-up/verification of efficacy. Dr. Taneja then lists imaging-related factors influencing oncologic efficacy including tumor size/extent, tumor location, focality, energy source, and gland size. He considers biopsy vs. MRI in treatment planning, explaining that systematic biopsy is inadequate for mapping disease, transperineal template biopsy is the gold standard, and MRI/MRI-targeted biopsy is not perfect, but very good. Dr. Taneja notes that MRI misses some clinically significant cancer, but observes that a 9 to 10 millimeter MRI/MRI-targeted biopsy guided focal ablation seems to identify all the index tumors. He also goes over imaging factors such as disease location and volume affect the choice of energy selection for focal therapy. Dr. Taneja then considers the benefits of imaging post partial gland ablation, explaining that very early imaging evaluates the anatomy of ablation but not its efficacy, intermediate interval imaging guides biopsy and identifies need for retreatment, delayed imaging identifies recurrence. He also briefly discusses the use of PET in cases where MRI does not detect recurrence. Dr. Taneja concludes that MRI has the ability to localize the index tumor, that margin considerations should take into account the known limitations of MRI in disease mapping, and that MRI remains the essential mainstay for monitoring following focal ablation.

Read More

Management of Men With PI-RADS 4-5 Lesions and Negative Biopsy

Posted by | Mar 2022

Samir S. Taneja, MD, Professor of Urologic Oncology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, discusses how to approach a negative MRI-targeted prostate biopsy in men with PI-RADS 4 or 5 lesions, explaining both why an MRI-targeted biopsy for a high suspicion MRI might be benign and what steps to take to determine the biopsy’s accuracy. Citing the PROMIS study, he notes that MRI is not entirely accurate and has neither a perfect positive predictive value (PPV) nor a perfect negative predictive value (NPV), though PPV is better at Gleason Grade greater than or equal to 3+4. Dr. Taneja then lists factors influencing PPV of MRI/template biopsy, including the given definition of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), indication for biopsy, the prevalence of disease in the sampled cohort, and biopsy technique/operator skill. He goes into depth on how the MRI-targeted biopsy technique might influence the likelihood of a false negative, noting how the PROFUS study showed that csPCa was more often found with fusion biopsy compared to visual targeting. Dr. Taneja also considers the significance of the number of cores taken, observing that while most men are diagnosed with csPCa in the first core, there is a subset that requires core 3 and 4. He synthesizes the data into a set of suggestions for a clinical approach to a negative MRI-targeted biopsy in the setting of PI-RADS 4-5 abnormality, stating that clinicians should assess how confident they should be in the biopsy, assess the accuracy of imaging, repeat imaging in 6-12 months to rule out a false positive and, if the abnormality persists, they should perform a repeat biopsy.

Read More

Join the GRU Community

- Why Join? -