ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2015
[Irreversible electroporation. Current value for focal treatment of prostate cancer].
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIrreversible electroporation (IRE), a new tissue ablation procedure available since 2007, could meet the requirements for ideal focal therapy (FT) with its postulated features, especially the absence of a thermal ablative effect. Thus far, there is no adequate tumor-entity-specific proof of its effectiveness, and its clinical application has hitherto been confined to very small patient cohorts. This also holds true for prostate cancer (PCA). Nevertheless, it is now being increasingly applied outside clinical trials-to a certain extent due to active advertising in the lay press. AIM OF THE STUDY: In this study, current discrepancies between the clinical application and study situation and the approval and market implementation of the procedure are described. The media portrayal of IRE is discussed from different perspectives, particularly with reference to the FT of PCA. This is followed by a final clinical assessment of IRE using the NanoKnife® system. DISCUSSION: Strict requirements govern new drug approvals. According to the German Drug Act (AMG), evidence of additional benefit over existing therapy must be provided through comparative clinical trials. For medicotechnical treatment procedures, on the other hand, such trial-based proof is not required according to the Medical Devices Act (MPG). The use of IRE even outside clinical trials has been actively promoted since the NanoKnife® system was put on the market. This has led to an increase in the number of uncontrolled IRE treatments of PCA in the last 2 years. The patients have to cover the high treatment costs themselves in these cases. If articles in the lay press advertise the procedure with promising but unverified contents, false hopes are raised in those concerned. This is disastrous if it delays the use of truly effective treatment options.
conclusionIRE basically still has high potential for the treatment of malignancies; however, whether it can really be used for FT remains unclear due to the lack of data. This also holds true for the treatment of PCA. Only carefully conducted scientific research studies can clarify the unresolved issues regarding IRE of PCA. The urgently needed development of universally valid treatment standards for IRE is unnecessarily hampered by the flow commercially driven patients.
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.