About

Jonathan Charles Routh is a Professor of Urology, a Professor in Pediatrics, and a Professor in Population Health Sciences at Duke University. He is also a member of the Duke Cancer Institute. His professional roles are based at Duke University, with addresses listed at 200 Trent Dr, Durham, NC 27708, and mailing address at 3831 Durham, NC 27710. The page indicates his involvement in the Department of Urology, but does not provide specific details about his research focus, background, or key contributions.

Research topics

• Medicine
• Internal medicine
• Urology
• Surgery
• Pathology
• Pediatrics
• Oncology
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Science
• Machine Learning
• Radiology
• Immunology
• Gynecology
• Algorithm
• Clinical psychology
• Psychiatry
• Finance
• Family medicine
• Gastroenterology
• Business
• Intensive care medicine
• Psychology

Selected publications

• Financial toxicity among individuals with spina bifida and their families: A qualitative study and conceptual model

  Journal of Pediatric Urology · 2022 · 21 citations

  Senior authorCorresponding
  • Medicine
  • Family medicine
  • Pediatrics
  PublisherDOI

• Surgical management of paratesticular rhabdomyosarcoma: A consensus opinion from the Children's Oncology Group, European paediatric Soft tissue sarcoma Study Group, and the Cooperative Weichteilsarkom Studiengruppe

  Pediatric Blood & Cancer · 2021 · 43 citations

  • Medicine
  • Internal medicine
  • Oncology

  The treatment of paratesticular rhabdomyosarcoma (PT-RMS) has varied over time and by cooperative group. The International Soft Tissue Sarcoma Database Consortium (INSTRuCT) is a collaboration of the Children's Oncology Group (COG) Soft Tissue Sarcoma Committee, European pediatric Soft tissue sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG), and the Cooperative Weichteilsarkom Studiengruppe (CWS). The INSTRuCT surgical committee has been given charge of the development of internationally applicable consensus guidelines for the surgical treatment of rhabdomyosarcoma. This clinical consensus opinion document addresses accepted principles and areas of controversy, such as scrotal violation and retroperitoneal nodal evaluation, providing an evidence-based guideline for the surgical treatment for PT-RMS.

  DOI

• Sexual Function and Dysfunction in Individuals with Spina Bifida: A Systematic Review

  Urology · 2021 · 20 citations

  Senior authorCorresponding
  • Medicine
  • Gynecology
  • Urology
  PublisherDOI

• Urodynamic characteristics of neurogenic bladder in newborns with myelomeningocele and refinement of the definition of bladder hostility: Findings from the UMPIRE multi-center study

  Journal of Pediatric Urology · 2021 · 41 citations

  • Medicine
  • Pediatrics
  • Surgery
  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• The Importance of Early Diagnosis and Management of Pediatric Neurogenic Bladder Dysfunction

  Research and Reports in Urology · 2021 · 22 citations

  Senior authorCorresponding
  • Medicine
  • Intensive care medicine
  • Pediatrics

  Neurogenic bladder dysfunction is a major source of urologic morbidity in children, especially in those with spina bifida (SB). Complications from progression of bladder dysfunction can include urinary tract infections (UTIs), urinary incontinence, upper tract deterioration, and renal dysfunction or failure. In these children, there has been a recent trend toward proactive rather than expectant management of neurogenic bladder. However, there is a lack of consensus on how to best achieve the three main goals of neurogenic bladder management: 1) preserving kidney function, 2) achieving continence (if desired by the family/individual), and 3) achieving social and functional urologic independence (if appropriate). Hence, our objective was to perform a narrative literature review to evaluate the approaches to diagnosis and management of pediatric neurogenic bladder dysfunction, with special focus on children with SB. The approach strategies vary across a spectrum, with a proactive strategy on one end of the spectrum and an expectant strategy at the other end. The proactive management strategy is characterized by early and frequent labs, imaging, and urodynamic (UDS) evaluation, with early initiation of clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) and proceeding with pharmacotherapy, or surgery if indicated. The expectant management strategy prioritizes surveillance labs and imaging prior to proceeding with invasive assessments and interventions such as UDS or pharmacotherapy. Both treatment strategies are currently utilized and data have historically been inconclusive in demonstrating efficacy of one regimen over the other. We performed a narrative literature evaluating proactive and expectant treatment strategies as they relate to diagnostics and management of Spina Bifida. From the available literature and our practice, a proactive strategy favors greater benefit in preventative management and may decrease risk of renal dysfunction compared with expectant management.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Machine Learning for Urodynamic Detection of Detrusor Overactivity

  Urology · 2021 · 49 citations

  • Machine Learning
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Medicine
  DOI

• Bone scan positivity in non-metastatic, castrate-resistant prostate cancer: external validation study

  International braz j urol · 2020 · 4 citations

  Senior authorCorresponding
  • Medicine
  • Oncology
  • Radiology

  INTRODUCTION: Tables predicting the probability of a positive bone scan in men with non-metastatic, castrate-resistant prostate cancer have recently been reported. We performed an external validation study of these bone scan positivity tables. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients seen at a tertiary care medical center (1996-2012) to select patients with non-metastatic, castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Abstracted data included demographic, anthropometric, and disease-specific data such as patient race, BMI, PSA kinetics, and primary treatment. Primary outcome was metastasis on bone scan. Multivariable logistic regression was performed using generalized estimating equations to adjust for repeated measures. Risk table performance was assessed using ROC curves. RESULTS: We identified 6.509 patients with prostate cancer who had received hormonal therapy with a post-hormonal therapy PSA ≥2ng/mL, 363 of whom had non-metastatic, castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Of these, 187 patients (356 bone scans) had calculable PSA kinetics and ≥1 bone scan. Median follow-up after castrate-resistant prostate cancer diagnosis was 32 months (IQR: 19-48). There were 227 (64%) negative and 129 (36%) positive bone scans. On multivariable analysis, higher PSA at castrate-resistant prostate cancer (4.67 vs. 4.4ng/mL, OR=0.57, P=0.02), shorter time from castrate-resistant prostate cancer to scan (7.9 vs. 14.6 months, OR=0.97, P=0.006) and higher PSA at scan (OR=2.91, P<0.0001) were significantly predictive of bone scan positivity. The AUC of the previously published risk tables for predicting scan positivity was 0.72. CONCLUSION: Previously published risk tables predicted bone scan positivity in men with non-metastatic, castrate-resistant prostate cancer with reasonable accuracy.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Benefit of delayed primary excision in rhabdomyosarcoma: A report from the Children's Oncology Group

  Cancer · 2020 · 44 citations

  • Medicine
  • Internal medicine
  • Surgery

  BACKGROUND: Most children with intermediate-risk rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) have gross disease (group III) at the initiation of chemotherapy. Delayed primary excision (DPE) after induction chemotherapy allows for a reduction in adjuvant radiation dose, but with the risk of potential surgical morbidity. The objectives of this study were to compare outcomes in children with group III RMS who did and did not undergo DPE and to assess surgical morbidity. METHODS: The study included 369 patients who had clinical group III RMS at sites amenable to DPE from intermediate-risk Children's Oncology Group studies D9803 (encouraged DPE) and ARST0531 (discouraged DPE). RESULTS: The primary tumor site was bladder/prostate (136 patients; 37%), extremity (97 patients; 26%), trunk (24 patients; 7%), retroperitoneum (91 patients; 25%), or intrathoracic/perineum/perianal (21 patients; 6%). In total, 112 patients (53.9%) underwent DPE in D9803, and 26 patients (16.2%) underwent DPE in ARST0531 (P < .001), with loss of vital organ or function in 30 of 138 patients (22%). DPE allowed for a reduced radiation dose in 110 of 135 patients (81%; 51% were reduced to 36 Gy, and 30% were reduced to 42 Gy). Patients who underwent DPE had improved unadjusted overall survival (P = .013). In adjusted regression analysis, the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI 0.43-1.16) was similar for patients who did and did not undergo DPE and was improved for the subset of patients who had tumors of the trunk and retroperitoneum (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Children with group III RMS have equivalent or improved outcomes with DPE and can receive a decreased radiation dose for definitive local control. The choice of local control modality should weigh the potential morbidity of surgery versus that of higher dose irradiation.

  DOI

• Immune Expression in Children With Vesicoureteral Reflux: A Pilot Study

  Urology · 2020 · 3 citations

  • Medicine
  • Urology
  • Gastroenterology
  PublisherDOI

Recent grants

• Comparative Effectiveness of Vesicoureteral Reflux Treatments in Children

  NIH · $671k · 2014–2019

• National Spina Bifida Patient Registry and Urologic Management of Young Children with Spina Bifida - Component B

  NIH · $536k · 2019–2026

• Urologic Management to Preserve Renal Function Protocol - Component C

  NIH · $166k · 2019–2026

Frequent coauthors

• John S. Wiener

  134 shared

• Caleb P. Nelson

  Boston Children's Hospital

  61 shared

• Steven Wolf

  Duke Medical Center

  49 shared

• Sherry S. Ross

  44 shared

• Paul Kokorowski

  Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

  42 shared

• Rohit Tejwani

  38 shared

• J. Todd Purves

  Duke University

  35 shared

• Richard Ashley

  31 shared

Education

• MPH

  Harvard School of Public Health

  2010

• MD

  University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

  2002

• BS

  North Carolina State University

  1998

Similar researchers at Duke University

• Robert J. Lefkowitzh-328
• Avshalom Caspih-242
• Darell Doty Bignerh-190
• Christopher Bang Newgardh-175
• Kun Shan Carolyn Leeh-168