Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29594551›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2018

Pair-matched patient-reported quality of life and early oncological control following focal irreversible electroporation versus robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Matthijs J Scheltema, John I Chang, Maret Böhm, Willemien van den Bos, Alexandar Blazevski, Ilan Gielchinsky, Anton M F Kalsbeek, Pim J van Leeuwen, Tuan V Nguyen, Theo M de Reijke and 4 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03504995 (Efficacy and Safety Assessment of Nanoknife), which is not on this map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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.

NCT03504995 nacompletednot on this map

Efficacy and Safety Assessment of Nanoknife (AngyoDynamics, USA) for Irreversible Electroporation (IRE) of Localized Prostate Cancer.

TypeinterventionalSponsorI.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical UniversityRan2018 to 2020Enrolled10ConditionsProstate Cancer, Prostate AdenocarcinomaArmsFocal irreversible electroporation of the prostate cancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Results from the PRESERVE trial: an editorial commentary.Translational andrology and urology · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Focal therapy for prostate cancer-ready to be a standard of care?Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Matthijs J ScheltemaGarvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, 370 Victoria Street, Sydney, NSW, 2010, Australia. m.scheltema@garvan.org.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9098-9574
John I ChangGarvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, 370 Victoria Street, Sydney, NSW, 2010, Australia.
Maret BöhmGarvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, 370 Victoria Street, Sydney, NSW, 2010, Australia.
Willemien van den BosGarvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, 370 Victoria Street, Sydney, NSW, 2010, Australia.
Alexandar BlazevskiGarvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, 370 Victoria Street, Sydney, NSW, 2010, Australia.
Ilan GielchinskyGarvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, 370 Victoria Street, Sydney, NSW, 2010, Australia.
Anton M F KalsbeekGarvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, 370 Victoria Street, Sydney, NSW, 2010, Australia.
Pim J van LeeuwenErasmus Medical Center, University of Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Tuan V NguyenGarvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, 370 Victoria Street, Sydney, NSW, 2010, Australia.
Theo M de ReijkeAcademic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amila R SiriwardanaGarvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, 370 Victoria Street, Sydney, NSW, 2010, Australia.
James E ThompsonGarvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, 370 Victoria Street, Sydney, NSW, 2010, Australia.
Jean J de la RosetteAcademic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Phillip D StrickerSt Vincent's Prostate Cancer Centre, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia · AUAmsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam · NLGarvan Institute of Medical Research · AUErasmus MC · NLUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe design, conduct and completion of randomized trials for curative prostate cancer (PCa) treatments are challenging. To evaluate the effect of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus focal irreversible electroporation (IRE) on patient-reported quality of life (QoL) and early oncological control using propensity-scored matching.

methodsPatients with T1c-cT2b significant PCa (high-volume ISUP 1 or any 2/3) who received unifocal IRE were pair-matched to patients who received nerve-sparing RARP. Patient-reported outcomes were prospectively assessed using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), AUA symptom score and Short Form of Health Survey (SF-12) physical and mental components. Oncological failure was defined as biochemical recurrence (RARP) or positive follow-up biopsies (IRE). Generalized mixed-effect models were used to compare IRE and RARP.

results50 IRE patients were matched to 50 RARP patients by propensity score. IRE was significantly superior to RARP in preserving pad-free continence (UC) and erections sufficient for intercourse (ESI). The absolute differences were 44, 21, 13, 14% for UC and 32, 46, 27, 22% for ESI at 1.5, 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. The EPIC summary scores showed no statistically significant differences. Urinary symptoms were reduced for IRE and RARP patients at 12 months, although IRE patient initially had more complaints. IRE patients experienced more early oncological failure than RARP patients.

conclusionsThese data demonstrated the superior preservation of UC and ESI with IRE compared to RARP up to 12 months after treatment. Long-term oncological data are warranted to provide ultimate proof for or against focal therapy.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedElectroporationHumansMaleMatched-Pair AnalysisMiddle AgedOrgan Sparing TreatmentsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPropensity ScoreProspective StudiesProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeFocal therapyIrreversible electroporationProstate cancerRadical prostatectomyRobotic

Identifiers

PMID29594551
PMCPMC6105143
OpenAlexW2794707751

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.