tweetindex
TR

Ashish M. Kamat, MD, MBBS

@UroDocAsh · Houston, TX · joined 20 Mar 2010

Endowed Professor, Surgeon, Former Fellowship Director @UTMDAnderson | President @IBCG_BladderCa | Assoc Editor @EurUrolOncol | Views my own

12 728Followers
841Following
10 434Posts total
60KViews on collected posts

Son gönderiler

Spot-on analysis. We assume that NECTIN4 is near ubiquitous, but if we want true precision with ADCs in urothelial cancer, surface availability and target dynamics have to replace broad-brush “positivity”. Looking forward to the prospective readouts and implications for bladder 326 views · 6 likes · 1 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →
Tyra Biosciences Reports Initial Phase 2 results of SURF302 : Dabogratinib in LG IR NMIBC https://t.co/ChbaHcstwF https://t.co/R7Ix3YAarM
1K views · 5 likes · 1 reposts · 0 replies Open on X →
Bladder Preservation After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Stick to the Plan! - https://t.co/nFiRBc7rYh @AmerUrological @IBCG_BladderCA @AmyLuckenbaugh @shilpaonc @ARRODRIGUEZMD #BladderCancer https://t.co/0DwJvc6vLI
2.6K views · 45 likes · 8 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →
Important change in the 2026 @AmerUrological NMIBC Guidelines: all high-grade Ta tumors are now classified as high-risk. This reduces a long-standing source of heterogeneity in the intermediate-risk group and should improve risk-appropriate treatment for patients, while creating 11.4K views · 96 likes · 30 reposts · 2 replies Open on X →
@UroDocAsh @montypal @MarekBabjuk @paolo_gontero @UroMoschini @urotoday @DrRosenbergMSK @siadaneshmand @JoshMeeks @MaxKates @SpiessPhilippe Which unresolved bladder-cancer question do you think most needs a prospective trial rather than another retrospective analysis? Sci-Quest c 34 views · 0 likes · 0 reposts · 0 replies Open on X →
@UroDocAsh @montypal @MarekBabjuk @paolo_gontero @UroMoschini @urotoday @DrRosenbergMSK @siadaneshmand @JoshMeeks @MaxKates @SpiessPhilippe What topics are planned? Should we expect new guidelines? 141 views · 0 likes · 0 reposts · 0 replies Open on X →
20 years ago, IBCG started with a small group around a table. Later this month, friends and colleagues from around the world gather in Houston for #IBCG26. Two days around the table tackling some of the hardest questions in #BladderCancer, debating the evidence and challenging h
17.7K views · 81 likes · 26 reposts · 2 replies Open on X →
@UroDocAsh @UrogerliMD @JoshMeeks @MaxKates @joanfundi @MRoupret @UroCancerMD @bbmdmsk @siadaneshmand @tbivala1 @SpiessPhilippe This is a great point that I always bring up with residents and fellows, especially once you add the subjectivity of the 3cm cutoff and the poor inter-r 334 views · 3 likes · 0 reposts · 0 replies Open on X →
@Agarwal_CaB @MaxKates @joanfundi @tompowles1 @MRoupret @WesKassouf @pcvblack @shilpaonc @evanguelosx @chana_weinstock Which is exactly why we at @IBCG_BladderCA [and @sitcancer] have maintained that TaHG should be classified as high risk. Because the clinical outcomes, molecula
2.1K views · 28 likes · 10 reposts · 2 replies Open on X →
@pjhensley11 @urotoday @drenriquegrande @MarekBabjuk @eugene_pietzak @WilliamKimMD And here is another contradiction that makes little sense. Some trials allow TaHG tumors to be classified as “intermediate risk” and justify observation as a reasonable control arm. Yet POTOMAC
2.2K views · 22 likes · 8 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →
@UrogerliMD @JoshMeeks @MaxKates @joanfundi @MRoupret @UroCancerMD @bbmdmsk @siadaneshmand @tbivala1 @SpiessPhilippe Our @JUrology paper looked at 251 patients with TaHG tumors. All treated with adequate BCG. We stratified them by risk groups - "intermediate-risk" vs "high-risk"
3.7K views · 29 likes · 7 reposts · 3 replies Open on X →
Time to revisit something I’ve been saying for years: TaHG bladder cancer is not intermediate risk. The clinical outcomes, molecular biology ... all point in the same direction. Yet some frameworks allow < 3cm TaHG tumors to be downgraded into “intermediate risk” alongside https
18.3K views · 78 likes · 23 reposts · 4 replies Open on X →

Aynı büyüklükteki hesaplara karşı

Son 90 güne ait 7 gönderi, 10K–100K takipçi aralığıyla yan yana. geniş kitleye gösteriliyor, ama izleyenlerin azı tepki veriyor.

Medyan görüntülenme1 038bu hesap1 00510K–100K için medyan
Erişim, %8.16%bu hesap3.72%10K–100K için medyan
Etkileşim, %0.63%bu hesap1.67%10K–100K için medyan
ÖlçütBu hesap10K–100K için medyanOran
Gönderi başına medyan görüntülenme1 0381 0051.03×
Erişim (görüntülenme ÷ takipçi)8.16%3.72%2.19×
Etkileşim oranı0.63%1.67%0.38×

Bu aralıktaki diğer hesaplar →   Başka bir hesapla karşılaştır →   Bu kıyas değerleri nasıl kuruluyor →

Growth & engagement

How the posts we collected actually performed: views and reaction rate post by post, what the audience did with them, and where the follower count goes.

Views per post

18.3K25 May
3.7K
2.2K
2.1K
334
17.7K15 Aug
141
34
11.4K4 Sep
2.6K8 Sep
1K9 Sep
32616 Sep

Last 12 collected posts, oldest on the left. The scale is logarithmic: one post can outrun the rest a hundred times over.

Engagement rate per post

0.59%25 May
1.08%
1.38%
1.87%
0.90%
0.63%15 Aug
0.00%
0.00%
1.15%4 Sep
2.04%8 Sep
0.58%9 Sep
2.45%16 Sep

Reactions — likes, reposts, replies and quotes — divided by views. Median for 10K–100K accounts is 1.67%.

What the audience does

Likes67.6%393 in total
Reposts19.6%114 in total
Replies2.8%16 in total
Quotes1.7%10 in total
Bookmarks8.3%48 in total

Share of every reaction we collected for this account. Replies mean argument, reposts mean endorsement, bookmarks mean the post was worth keeping.

The follower curve appears once this account has two daily snapshots — we take one a day, and this one is on its first.

Benzer hesaplar