Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26458959›Full record

ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2016

Focal irreversible electroporation for prostate cancer: functional outcomes and short-term oncological control.

F Ting, M Tran, M Böhm, A Siriwardana, P J Van Leeuwen, A M Haynes, W Delprado, R Shnier, P D Stricker

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Focal therapy for prostate cancer.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

F TingSt Vincent's Prostate Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5805-9860
M TranSt Vincent's Prostate Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia.
M BöhmGarvan Institute of Medical Research/The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia.
A SiriwardanaSt Vincent's Prostate Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia.
P J Van LeeuwenSt Vincent's Prostate Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia.
A M HaynesGarvan Institute of Medical Research/The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia.
W DelpradoDouglass Hanly Moir Pathology, Macquarie Park, NSW, Australia.
R ShnierSouthern Radiology, Randwick, NSW, Australia.
P D StrickerSt Vincent's Prostate Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent data on the use of irreversible electroporation (IRE) in the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) is limited. We aim to evaluate the safety, short-term functional and oncological outcomes of focal IRE in low-intermediate risk PCa.

methodsBetween February 2013 and May 2014, 32 consecutive men underwent IRE at a single centre. Patients with low-intermediate risk PCa who had not received previous PCa treatment were included for analysis. The tumour was ablated using 3-6 electrodes, ensuring a minimum 5-mm safety margin around the visible magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesion. Follow-up included recording Clavien complications, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaires (baseline, 1.5, 3, 6 months), 6-month multi-parametric MRI (mp-MRI) and 7-month biopsy. Findings on mp-MRI and biopsy were sub-divided into infield, adjacent or outfield of the treatment zone.

resultsTwenty-five men were included for final analysis. Safety follow-up revealed one Clavien Grade 3 complication and five Grade 1 complications. Functional follow-up confirmed no significant change in American Urological Association urinary symptom score, sexual or bowel function. Infield, there were no suspicious findings on mp-MRI (n=24) or biopsy (n=21) in all patients. Adjacent to the treatment zone, five (21%) had suspicious findings on mp-MRI with four (19%) proving to be significant on biopsy. Outfield, there were two (8%) with suspicious findings on mp-MRI and one (5%) significant finding on biopsy. For the five patients with significant findings on follow-up biopsy, one is awaiting repeat IRE, one had radical prostatectomy and three remained on active surveillance.

conclusionsIn selected patients with low-intermediate risk PCa, focal IRE appears to be safe with minimal morbidity. There were no infield recurrences and 76% of patients were histologically free of significant cancer at 8 months. Almost all recurrences were adjacent to the treatment zone, and this was addressed by widening the treatment margins.

Indexed as

ElectrochemotherapyAdultAgedBiopsyHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingProstateProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRadiographyTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID26458959

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.