ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2013
[Focal prostate cancer therapy: capabilities, limitations and prospects].
Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Irreversible electroporation. Current value for focal treatment of prostate cancer].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2015Review
- [Treatment of localized prostate cancer with high-intensity focused ultrasound].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2015Review
- [Focal therapy for prostate cancer in Germany - 2014 status].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) face the difficult decision between a potential overtreatment by one of the standard therapies and active surveillance (AS) with the potential insecurity regarding cancer control. A focal therapy (FT) implies a treatment of the tumor within the prostate only.
methodsThis review evaluates the current literature and expert opinion of different therapies suited for FT as well as concepts for prostate imaging, biopsy and histopathological evaluation.
resultsCurrently there is a lack of multicenter, randomized, prospective data on the effectiveness of FT. Nonetheless, the published data indicate a sufficient tumor control with a favorable side effect profile. There are still flaws in the diagnostics with regard to tumor detection and histological evaluation. Multicenter studies are currently recruiting worldwide which will provide new data with a higher level of evidence.
conclusionAt present, the effectiveness of FT should not be compared directly to standard radical therapies and FT should only be performed within studies. In cases of cancer progression after FT a salvage treatment should still be possible.
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.