ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2015
[Treatment of localized prostate cancer with high-intensity focused ultrasound].
Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transrectal Ultrasound in Prostate Cancer: Current Utilization, Integration with mpMRI, HIFU and Other Emerging Applications.Cancer management and research · 2022Review
- [Irreversible electroporation. Current value for focal treatment of prostate cancer].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is an alternative technique in the treatment of prostate cancer (PC). Despite proven oncologic efficacy, HIFU is still not establish as a standard therapy for PC in Germany due to insufficient clinical studies.
objectivesHIFU can be performed as primary whole gland treatment, primary focal treatment, or salvage treatment in patients with local recurrence after external radiation therapy (RT) or seeds (BT). This paper provides an overview of the current significance of HIFU therapy in Germany.
resultsPrimary whole gland HIFU treatment showed approximately similar oncologic efficacy and side effects when compared to radical prostatectomy (RP) and RT or BT but results were not better than standard therapies. Between the priorities of the active standard therapies, on the one hand, and active surveillance, on the other, primary focal HIFU treatment may offer a new therapeutic approach for patients with low- and early intermediate-risk diseases. Diagnostic uncertainties and the lack of validated oncological outcome data are currently strong limitations to the results of primary focal treatment. Salvage treatment may offer intermediate-term disease-free survival for patients with local recurrence after RT or BT, although it may be accompanied by increased side effects.
conclusionCurrently, there is only little need for an alternative whole gland treatment besides RP and RT/BT. The number of patients with low- and early intermediate-risk diseases continues to grow. Some of these patients may benefit from primary focal HIFU treatment. Prospective multicentric clinical trials are needed to validate the oncologic efficacy of primary focal HIFU treatment.
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.