Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36723911›Full record

ArticleJAMA surgery2023

Effect of Focal vs Extended Irreversible Electroporation for the Ablation of Localized Low- or Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer on Early Oncological Control: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Kai Zhang, Jeremy Teoh, Pilar Laguna, Jose Dominguez-Escrig, Eric Barret, Juan Casanova Ramon-Borja, Gordon Muir, Julia Bohr, Theo M de Reijke, Paula Pelechano Gómez and 3 more

Erratum issued 2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT01835977 phase2unknown statusnot on this map

Multi-Center Randomized Clinical Two Arm Intervention Study Evaluating Irreversible Electroporation for the Ablation of Localized Prostate Cancer

TypeinterventionalSponsorClinical Research Office of the Endourological SocietyRan2015 to 2025Enrolled106ConditionsProstate CancerArmsIrreversible Electroporation (Nanoknife)
NCT07263451 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Safety and Feasibility of Irreversible Electroporation for Early-stage Breast Cancer: a Prospective, Open-Label, Single-Arm, Exploratory Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorTian'an JiangRan2025 to 2026Enrolled24ConditionsBreast CancerArmsIRE by stunning pulse therapy device
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 9 institutions in 9 countries.

Kai ZhangDepartment of Urology, Beijing United Family Hospital and Clinics, Beijing, China.
Jeremy TeohS.H. Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Pilar LagunaDepartment of Urology, Istanbul Medipol Mega University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Jose Dominguez-EscrigDepartment of Urology, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain.
Eric BarretDepartment of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France.
Juan Casanova Ramon-BorjaDepartment of Urology, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain.
Gordon MuirDepartment of Urology, King's College Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Julia BohrDepartment of Urology, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Ev. Huyssens-Stiftung, Essen, Germany.
Theo M de ReijkeDepartment of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Paula Pelechano GómezDepartment of Radiology, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain.
Chi-Fai NgS.H. Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Rafael Sanchez-SalasDepartment of Urology, McGill University Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Jean de la RosetteDepartment of Urology, Istanbul Medipol Mega University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología · ESChinese University of Hong Kong · HKIstanbul Medipol University · TRAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLBeijing United Family Hospital · CNInstitute Mutualiste Montsouris · FRKing's College Hospital · GBKliniken Essen-Mitte · DEMcGill University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Focal ablative irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a therapy that treats only the area of the tumor with the aim of achieving oncological control while reducing treatment-related functional detriment. Objective: To evaluate the effect of focal vs extended IRE on early oncological control for patients with localized low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized clinical trial conducted at 5 centers in Europe, men with localized low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer were randomized to receive either focal or extended IRE ablation. Data were collected at baseline and at regular intervals after the procedure from June 2015 to January 2020, and data were analyzed from September 2021 to July 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Oncological outcome as indicated by presence of clinically significant prostate cancer (International Society of Urological Pathology grade ≥2) on transperineal template-mapping prostate biopsy at 6 months after IRE. Descriptive measures of results from that biopsy included the number and location of positive cores. Results: A total of 51 and 55 patients underwent focal and extended IRE, respectively. Median (IQR) age was 64 years (58-67) in the focal ablation group and 64 years (57-68) in the extended ablation group. Median (IQR) follow-up time was 30 months (24-48). Clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 9 patients (18.8%) in the focal ablation group and 7 patients (13.2%) in the extended ablation group. There was no significant difference in presence of clinically significant prostate cancer between the 2 groups. In the focal ablation group, 17 patients (35.4%) had positive cores outside of the treated area, 3 patients (6.3%) had positive cores in the treated area, and 5 patients (10.4%) had positive cores both in and outside of the treated area. In the extended group, 10 patients (18.9%) had positive cores outside of the treated area, 9 patients (17.0%) had positive cores in the treated area, and 2 patients (3.8%) had positive cores both in and outside of the treated area. Clinically significant cancer was found in the treated area in 5 of 48 patients (10.4%) in the focal ablation group and 5 of 53 patients (9.4%) in the extended ablation group. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that focal and extended IRE ablation achieved similar oncological outcomes in men with localized low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Because some patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer are still candidates for active surveillance, focal therapy may be a promising option for those patients with a high risk of cancer progression. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01835977.

Indexed as

Ablation TechniquesProstatic NeoplasmsAgedBiopsyElectroporationHumansMaleMiddle AgedProstate

Identifiers

PMID36723911
PMCPMC10099059
OpenAlexW4318754037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.