ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2019
[Focal therapy for prostate cancer].
Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2019. 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.
- [On the practice of therapy decision in locally limited prostate cancer: surgery vs. radiation-who benefits? : Allocation and results of a monocentric, cumulative long-term study].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2022Observational
- Interventional therapy in malignant conditions of the prostate.Der Radiologe · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Focal therapy (FT) should have the same oncological efficacy as whole gland therapy with fewer side effects. Precise diagnosis with PI-RADS v2 standard multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and fusion or template biopsy is a basic prerequisite. Numerous ablation technologies and treatment strategies have been developed, including hemiablation. Treatment success is still inconsistently defined. The only large randomized study available compares one of the procedures to standard therapy. Therefore, even in 2019, FT must still be regarded as experimental and should only be carried out within the context of studies. Follow-up should correspond to active surveillance (AS), including MRI and fusion biopsy. Advantages and disadvantages of each ablation technique should be taken into consideration as well as the suitability of certain regions in the gland. Ideally, an individualized "à la carte" selection of various procedures should be offered. FT is well suited for patients with highly localized cancers at intermediate risk if standard therapies or AS is not possible or has been refused.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30734839What 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.