Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33387088›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of clinical oncology2021

Cryoablation, high-intensity focused ultrasound, irreversible electroporation, and vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy for prostate cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis.

Run-Qi Guo, Xiao-Xiao Guo, Yuan-Ming Li, Zhi-Xin Bie, Bin Li, Xiao-Guang Li

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of clinical oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Run-Qi GuoMinimally Invasive Tumor Therapies Center, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Beijing, 100370, People's Republic of China. lawlietkaku@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7026-6937
Xiao-Xiao GuoInstitute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, No.1 Dongdan Dahua Street, Beijing, 100370, People's Republic of China.
Yuan-Ming LiMinimally Invasive Tumor Therapies Center, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Beijing, 100370, People's Republic of China.
Zhi-Xin BieMinimally Invasive Tumor Therapies Center, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Beijing, 100370, People's Republic of China.
Bin LiMinimally Invasive Tumor Therapies Center, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Beijing, 100370, People's Republic of China.
Xiao-Guang LiMinimally Invasive Tumor Therapies Center, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Beijing, 100370, People's Republic of China. xglee88@126.com.
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CN

Funding

Scientific Research Foundation for Central Health Care 2020YB10Scientific Research Starting Foundation for PhD/MD BJ-2019-135
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cryoablation (CA), high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), irreversible electroporation (IRE), and vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy (VTP) have been evaluated as novel strategies for selected patients with prostate cancer (PCa). We aim to determine the current status of literature regarding the clinical outcomes among these minimally invasive therapies. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for all English literature published from January 2001 to December 2019 was conducted to identify studies evaluating outcomes of CA, HIFU, IRE or VTP on PCa. Proportionality with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was performed using STATA version 14.0. 56 studies consisting of 7383 participants were found to report data of interest and fulfilled the inclusion criteria in the final meta-analysis. The pooled proportions of positive biopsy after procedure were 20.0%, 24.3%, 24.2%, and 36.2% in CA, HIFU, IRE and VTP, respectively. The pooled proportions of BRFS were 75.7% for CA and 74.4% for HIFU. The pooled proportions of CSS were 96.1%, 98.2%, and 97.9% for CA, HIFU, and IRE, respectively. The pooled proportions of OS were 92.8% for CA and 85.2% for HIFU. The pooled proportions of FFS were 64.7%, 90.4%, and 76.7% for CA, IRE and VTP, respectively. The pooled proportions of MFS were 92.8% for HIFU and 99.1% for IRE. This meta-analysis shows that CA, HIFU, IRE, and VTP are promising therapies for PCa patients with similar clinical outcomes. However, further larger, well-designed randomized controlled trials are required to confirm this assertion.

Indexed as

CryosurgeryPhotochemotherapyProstatic NeoplasmsBiopsyElectroporationHumansMaleTreatment OutcomeCryoablationHigh-intensity focused ultrasoundIrreversible electroporationProstate cancerVascular-targeted phototherapy

Identifiers

PMID33387088
OpenAlexW3117458370

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.