ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2021
Focal therapy for primary and salvage prostate cancer treatment: a narrative review.
Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Focal Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Case Series with Cost Analysis.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Synergistic Efficacy of WST11-VTP and P-Selectin-Targeted Nanotherapy in a Preclinical Prostate Cancer Model.Cancers · 2025Article
- MRI after focal therapy for prostate cancer: what radiologists must know?Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Surgical and oncological outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy after focal therapies: a matched-pair analysis.World journal of urology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Despite innovations in surgical technology and advancements in radiation therapy, radical treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer are associated with significant patient morbidity, including both urinary and sexual dysfunction. This has created a vital need for therapies and management strategies that provide an acceptable degree of oncologic efficacy while mitigating these undesirable side effects. Successful developments in screening approaches and advances in prostate imaging have allowed clinicians to identify, localize, and more precisely target early cancers. This has afforded urologists with an important opportunity to develop and employ focal ablation techniques that selectively destroy tumors while preserving the remainder of the gland, thus avoiding detrimental treatment effects to surrounding sensitive structures. A lack of high-level evidence supporting such an approach had previously hindered widespread adoption of focal treatments, but there are now numerous published clinical trials which have sought to establish benchmarks for safety and efficacy. As the clinical evidence supporting a potential role in prostate cancer treatment begins to accumulate, there has been a growing acceptance of focal therapy in the urologic oncology community. In this narrative review article, we describe the techniques, advantages, and side effect profiles of the most commonly utilized focal ablative techniques and analyze published clinical trial data supporting their evolving role in the prostate cancer treatment paradigm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.