ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2015
Intraprostatic ethanol diffusion: comparison of two injection methods using ex vivo human prostates.
Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 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.
- Tissue distribution of ethanol after intraprostatic injection using a porous needle.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- A pilot study in intraparenchymal therapy delivery in the prostate: a comparison of delivery with a porous needle vs standard needle.BMC urology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntraprostatic injection of ethanol has been previously tested in clinical trials as a potential treatment of BPH, with variable outcomes. As evident from animal studies, the inconsistency was owing to various degrees of ethanol backflow along the needle tract. In acute canine experiments, we previously documented that using convection enhanced delivery (CED) eliminates backflow and improves ethanol distribution. The goal of this study was to compare the diffusion pattern between a microporous hollow fiber catheter (MiHFC) and a standard needle in human prostates from organ donors.
methodsProstates were harvested from cadaveric organ donors immediately after removal of organs for transplant. After trimming off excess fat and weighing, prostates were injected with absolute ethanol. The total injected volume was 25% of the calculated prostate volume. One lateral lobe was injected using a single lumen 21-gauge control needle. The contralateral lobe was injected with the same volume but using a MiHFC. Immediately after injection, prostates were fixed en bloc in 10% neutral-buffered formalin, and then sectioned. Three-dimensional reconstruction was performed to determine lesion volume based on hematoxylin- and eosin-stained cross-sections.
resultsThree fresh human prostates were harvested and injected. The time from harvest to intraprostatic injection was 15-35 min. The lesion created by the MiHFC was 1.14±0.52 cm(3), whereas that from the control needle was 0.28±0.10 cm(3) (P=0.038). No backflow was observed along the needle tract of the MiHFC.
conclusionsThis study shows that freshly harvested human prostates can be used to evaluate new treatments using intraprostatic injection. Similar to in vivo canine experiments, the ethanol lesion sizes were significantly bigger with the use of a MiHFC when compared with a standard single lumen needle.
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.