ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
Single-Center Evaluation of Treatment Success Using Two Different Protocols for MRI-Guided Transurethral Ultrasound Ablation of Localized Prostate Cancer.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oncological efficacy, functional outcomes and safety of MR-guided ultrasound ablation (MRgFUS/TULSA) for localized prostate cancer: a scoping review.La Radiologia medica · 2026Article
- Optilume drug-coated balloon dilation for treatment of post-prostate cancer ablative therapy urethral stricture: a case series.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess differences in 24-month oncologic and functional outcomes in men with low to intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation (TULSA) using intentionally conservative versus intensified treatment parameters. PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients from a single center involved in two multicenter trials were included in this analysis. This included 14 of 30 patients with Gleason 3 + 3 from a Phase I study using intentionally conservative treatment parameters, and 15 of 115 patients with Gleason ≤ 3 + 4 from a pivotal study using intensified parameters. Follow-up data compared across these cohorts included 12-month biopsy and MRI for all patients, and 24-month PSA, micturition and quality of life (IIEF, IPSS, IPSS-QOL). The prognostic value of baseline parameters and PSA kinetics on 12-month histological recurrence was evaluated by logistic regression.
results12-month biopsy revealed clinically significant residual disease in 4 (29%) and 2 (14%) patients from the Phase I and pivotal studies, respectively. PSA nadir was 0.7 ng/ml for Phase I and 0.5 ng/ml for pivotal study patients. Patient age at diagnosis, use of MRI fusion/systematic prostate biopsy, number of obtained cores at initial biopsy, PSA course, and PSA nadir were identified as prognostic factors for treatment success. All but one patient from each cohort maintained erection firmness sufficient for penetration. No cases of pad use were reported at 24 months. There were no Grade 4 or higher adverse events, and no late toxicity related to the procedure.
conclusionTwo-year follow-up demonstrated the efficacy of TULSA for the treatment of localized prostate cancer, and the durability of PSA and functional outcomes. Intensifying treatment parameters in the pivotal trial had no impact on safety or functional outcomes through 24 months, while reducing the recurrence rate for clinically significant disease. Careful patient selection by MRI fusion/systematic prostate biopsy and adequate follow-up through routine 12-month biopsy are recommended.
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.