ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2015
[Focal therapy for prostate cancer: German version].
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Why we should not routinely apply irreversible electroporation as an alternative curative treatment modality for localized prostate cancer at this stage.World journal of urology · 2017Review
- [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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Focal therapy is a treatment strategy for men with localized prostate cancer that may serve as an alternative option to radical therapy. A number of minimally invasive ablative technologies are available to deliver treatment, and the energies most commonly used include high-intensity focused ultrasound and cryotherapy. The benefit of a tissue-preserving approach is the limitation of damage to key structures such as the neurovascular bundles, external urinary sphincter, rectal mucosa and bladder neck. This in turn minimizes side effects typically associated with radical therapies whilst also aiming to maintain oncological control. Over 30 single-centre studies of focal therapy have been published to date reporting excellent continence rates, good potency rates and acceptable short-term oncological outcomes. However, there are a number of controversial aspects associated with focal therapy including the index lesion hypothesis, patient selection criteria, assessment of treatment effect and the lack of medium- and long-term oncological outcomes. In the process of the adoption of new technology, there is a limited window of opportunity to provide this evidence in well-designed prospective trials. Men should be allowed to benefit from the potential advantages of this novel treatment whilst under close surveillance. An English version of this article is available under dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00120-014-3734-7.
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.