Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37101771›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2023

Patient-reported Satisfaction and Regret Following Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Multicenter Evaluation.

Alireza Ghoreifi, Masatomo Kaneko, Samuel Peretsman, Atsuko Iwata, Jessica Brooks, Aliasger Shakir, Dordaneh Sugano, Jie Cai, Giovanni Cacciamani, Daniel Park and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European urology open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. The use of focal therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer in Canada Where are we, how did we get here, and where are we going?Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
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

15 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Alireza GhoreifiCenter for Image-Guided Surgery, Focal Therapy and Artificial Intelligence for Prostate Cancer, USC Institute of Urology, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Masatomo KanekoCenter for Image-Guided Surgery, Focal Therapy and Artificial Intelligence for Prostate Cancer, USC Institute of Urology, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Samuel PeretsmanUrology Specialists of the Carolinas, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Atsuko IwataCenter for Image-Guided Surgery, Focal Therapy and Artificial Intelligence for Prostate Cancer, USC Institute of Urology, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Jessica BrooksUrology Specialists of the Carolinas, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Aliasger ShakirCenter for Image-Guided Surgery, Focal Therapy and Artificial Intelligence for Prostate Cancer, USC Institute of Urology, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Dordaneh SuganoCenter for Image-Guided Surgery, Focal Therapy and Artificial Intelligence for Prostate Cancer, USC Institute of Urology, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Jie CaiCenter for Image-Guided Surgery, Focal Therapy and Artificial Intelligence for Prostate Cancer, USC Institute of Urology, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Giovanni CacciamaniCenter for Image-Guided Surgery, Focal Therapy and Artificial Intelligence for Prostate Cancer, USC Institute of Urology, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Daniel ParkCenter for Image-Guided Surgery, Focal Therapy and Artificial Intelligence for Prostate Cancer, USC Institute of Urology, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Amir H LebastchiCenter for Image-Guided Surgery, Focal Therapy and Artificial Intelligence for Prostate Cancer, USC Institute of Urology, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Osamu UkimuraDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Duke BahnProstate Institute of America, Ventura, CA, USA.
Inderbir GillCenter for Image-Guided Surgery, Focal Therapy and Artificial Intelligence for Prostate Cancer, USC Institute of Urology, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Andre Luis AbreuCenter for Image-Guided Surgery, Focal Therapy and Artificial Intelligence for Prostate Cancer, USC Institute of Urology, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine · JPUniversity of Southern California · USProstate Institute of America · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Several reports are available regarding the treatment decision regret of patients receiving conventional treatments for localized prostate cancer (PCa); yet data on patients undergoing focal therapy (FT) are sparse. Objective: To evaluate the treatment decision satisfaction and regret among patients who underwent FT for PCa with high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) or cryoablation (CRYO). Design setting and participants: We identified consecutive patients who underwent HIFU or CRYO FT as the primary treatment for localized PCa at three US institutions. A survey with validated questionnaires, including the five-question Decision Regret Scale (DRS), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5), was mailed to the patients. The regret score was calculated based on the five items of the DRS, and regret was defined as a DRS score of >25. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Multivariable logistic regression models were applied to assess the predictors of treatment decision regret. Results and limitations: Of 236 patients, 143 (61%) responded to the survey. Baseline characteristics were similar between responders and nonresponders. During a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 43 (26-68) mo, the treatment decision regret rate was 19.6%. On a multivariable analysis, higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at nadir after FT (odds ratio [OR] 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-2, Conclusions: FT for localized PCa is well accepted by the patients, with a low regret rate. Higher PSA at nadir, presence of cancer on follow-up biopsy, bothersome postoperative urinary symptoms, and impotence after FT were independent predictors of treatment decision regret. Patient summary: In this report, we looked at the factors affecting satisfaction and regret in patients with prostate cancer undergoing focal therapy. We found that focal therapy is well accepted by the patients, while presence of cancer on follow-up biopsy as well as bothersome urinary symptoms and sexual dysfunction can predict treatment decision regret.

Indexed as

Focal therapyOutcomePatient satisfactionProstate cancer

Identifiers

PMID37101771
PMCPMC10123415
OpenAlexW4321381297

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.