Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32444886›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of urology2021

Current state of image-guided focal therapy for prostate cancer.

Rafael R Tourinho-Barbosa, Bradford J Wood, Andre Luis Abreu, Bruno Nahar, Toshitaka Shin, Selcuk Guven, Thomas J Polascik

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Surveillance after Focal Therapy - a Comprehensive Review.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Ablative options for prostate cancer management.Turkish journal of urology · 2021
    Review
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

7 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Rafael R Tourinho-BarbosaDepartment of Urology, Hospital CardioPulmonar, 157, Ponciano Oliveira Street, Salvador, Bahia, 40170-530, Brazil. rafael.tourinho@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9826-2890
Bradford J WoodCenter for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Interventional Radiology, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, NIH Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Andre Luis AbreuUSC Institute of Urology and Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Bruno NaharDepartment of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA.
Toshitaka ShinDepartment of Urology, Oita University Faculty of Medicine, Oita, Japan.
Selcuk GuvenDepartment of Urology, School of Medicine, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Thomas J PolascikDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Duke Medical Center · USHospital São Rafael · BRIstanbul Medipol University · TRNational Cancer Institute · USOita University · JPUniversity of Miami · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

Center for Interventional OncologyZIDBC011242 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI WOOD, BRADFORD J · 2009 to 2025
$18.7M
Navigation Tools for Image Guided Minimally invasive TherapiesZIACL040011 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI WOOD, BRADFORD · 2009 to 2025
$0k
Interventional OncologyZIACL040015 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI WOOD, BRADFORD · 2009 to 2025
$0k
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo review the current evidence regarding protocols and outcomes of image-guided focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa).

methodsA literature search of the latest published studies assessing primary FT for PCa was carried out in Medline and Cochrane library databases followed by a critical review. FT modalities, follow-up strategies, and oncological and toxicity outcomes were summarized and discussed in this review.

resultsTwenty-four studies with six different sources of energy met the inclusion criteria. A heterogeneity of patient selection, energy sources, treatment templates, and definitions of failure was found among the studies. While a third of patients may be found to have additional cancer burden over 3-5 years following FT, most patients will remain free of a radical procedure. The vast majority of patients maintain urinary continence and good erectile function after FT. Acute urinary retention is the most common complication, whilst severe complications remain rare.

conclusionAn increasing number of prospective studies with longer follow-up have been recently published. Acceptable cancer control and low treatment toxicity after FT have been consistently reported. Follow-up imaging and routine biopsy must be encouraged post-FT. While there is no reliable PSA threshold to predict failure after FT, reporting post-FT positive biopsies and retreatment rates appear to be standard when assessing treatment efficacy.

Indexed as

Ablation TechniquesHumansMaleOrgan Sparing TreatmentsProstatic NeoplasmsAblation techniquesFocal therapyLocalizedOutcomeProstate cancer

Identifiers

PMID32444886
OpenAlexW3028035210

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.