Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29743538›Full record

ReviewProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2018

Which technology to select for primary focal treatment of prostate cancer?-European Section of Urotechnology (ESUT) position statement.

Roman Ganzer, Vinodh Kumar Adithyaa Arthanareeswaran, Hashim U Ahmed, Andrea Cestari, Pascal Rischmann, Georg Salomon, Dogu Teber, Evangelos Liatsikos, Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg, Eric Barret

Abstract readReviewConsensus Statement
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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.

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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

10 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.

Roman GanzerDepartment of Urology, Asklepios Hospital Bad Tölz, Bad Tölz, Germany. r.ganzer@asklepios.com.
Vinodh Kumar Adithyaa ArthanareeswaranDepartment of Urology, Asklepios Hospital Bad Tölz, Bad Tölz, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4064-0788
Hashim U AhmedDivision of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Andrea CestariDepartment of Urology, Advanced Urotechnology Center, IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Milan, Italy.
Pascal RischmannDepartment of Urology, Rangueil University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Georg SalomonMartini Clinic, Prostate Cancer Center, Hamburg, Germany.
Dogu TeberDepartment of Urology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Evangelos LiatsikosDepartment of Urology, University of Patras, Patras, Greece.
Jens-Uwe StolzenburgDepartment of Urology, Asklepios Hospital Bad Tölz, Bad Tölz, Germany.
Eric BarretDepartment of Urology, Institut Montsouris, Paris, France.
Asklepios · DEHeidelberg University · DEHôpital Rangueil · FRImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBInstitute Mutualiste Montsouris · FRIRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano · ITMartini-Klinik · DEUniversity of Patras · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith growing interest in focal therapy (FT) of prostate cancer (PCa) there is an increasing armamentarium of treatment modalities including high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), cryotherapy, focal laser ablation (FLA), irreversible electroporation (IRE), vascular targeted photodynamic therapy (VTP), focal brachytherapy (FBT) and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). Currently there are no clear recommendations as to which of these technologies are appropriate for individual patient characteristics. Our intention was to review the literature for special aspects of the different technologies that might be of advantage depending on individual patient and tumour characteristics.

methodsThe current literature on FT was screened for the following factors: morbidity, repeatability, tumour risk category, tumour location, tumour size and prostate volume and anatomical issues. The ESUT expert panel arrived at consensus regarding a position statement on a structured pathway for available FT technologies based on a combination of the literature and expert opinion.

resultsSide effects were low across different studies and FT modalities with urinary continence rates of 90-100% and erectile dysfunction between 5 and 52%. Short to medium cancer control based on post-treatment biopsies were variable between ablative modalities. Expert consensus suggested that posterior lesions are better amenable to FT using HIFU. Cryotherapy provides best possible outcomes for anterior tumours. Apical lesions, when treated with FBT, may yield the least urethral morbidity.

conclusionsFurther prospective trials are required to assess medium to long term disease control of different ablative modalities for FT. Amongst different available FT modalities our ESUT expert consensus suggests that some may be better for diffe`rent tumour locations. Tumour risk, tumour size, tumour location, and prostate volume are all important factors to consider and might aid in designing future FT trials.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesBrachytherapyCryosurgeryCryotherapyHumansMalePhotochemotherapyProstatic Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID29743538
OpenAlexW2801441284

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.