ArticleCureus2023
Focal Cryoablation of the Prostate: Primary Treatment in 163 Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Established focal therapy-HIFU, IRE, or cryotherapy-where are we now?-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025Pooled it
- MR Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Biopsy and Primary Focal Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2026Review
- Prostate Cancer Treatment: Cryoablation in Context.Cancers · 2026Review
- Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer: State of the Art, Physical Principles, Potentials, and Challenges.Cancers · 2026Review
- Urinary Metabolome Study for Monitoring Prostate Cancer Recurrence Following Radical Prostatectomy.Cancers · 2025Article
- Current Status of Cryoablation in Prostate Cancer Management.Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 2025Review
- Proceedings from an international consensus meeting on ablation in urogenital diseases.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- Focal Therapy in Grade Group 3 Prostate Cancer.Current urology reports · 2024Review
- Review
- Focal Minimally Invasive Treatment in Localized Prostate Cancer: Comprehensive Review of Different Possible Strategies.Cancers · 2024Review
- Focal Cryotherapy in Prostate Cancer. Does Gleason Impact Results?International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective Whole gland treatment of the prostate has known efficacy in treating many grades of prostate cancer. However, it is often associated with increased morbidity, including erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence. Focal ablative therapies, including focal cryoablation (FC), are utilized to minimize the risk of tumor progression and preserve erectile and urinary function. There is little to no consensus on whether intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer should be treated with focal therapy. However, there is a growing body of literature on the effectiveness of FC as an effective means of prostate cancer control. We characterize our experience with 163 patients who underwent FC with a median follow-up of 39 months (IQR: 24-60). Methods A 163-patient retrospective cohort underwent FC of the prostate at a single clinic by a physician from November 2008 to December 2020. Each of these T1c patients in this single-tail study was monitored for biochemical recurrence (BCR) and oncologic outcomes. American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) definition of BCR is three consecutive prostate-specific antigens (PSA) increases of more than 0.5 ng/mL or, along with the utilization of the Phoenix definition, a PSA greater than nadir by 2 ng/mL was used to define BCR. This study's primary endpoint includes BCR or biochemical disease-free survival rates. Secondary endpoints include patient side effects, such as measuring for urinary incontinence and outcomes of salvage treatments. Cox proportional hazard analyses defined univariate HRs and 95% CIs for pre-operative PSA (POPSA), Decipher, and Gleason Grade Groups (GGGs) to determine the prognostic impact of pathologic factors. Statistical analysis and BCR timeline analysis also included logistic regression and the Kaplan-Meier method, with significance considered at p < 0.05. Select focal cryotherapy patients were monitored utilizing genomic sequencing tests. Results Our cohort included 27 patients (16.5%) with D'Amico low, 115 patients (70.5%) with intermediate, and 23 patients (14.1%) with high-risk prostate cancers. One month after FC, a 73% reduction in PSA resulted in a median post-operative PSA of 1.39 ng/mL (IQR: 0.46-2.80 ng/mL). At five years, our cohort yielded biochemical disease-free recurrence rates of 78%, 74%, and 55% for low, intermediate, and high-grade cancers, respectively. Genetic risk stratification results showed very similar BCR rates to patients whose tissues did not undergo genomic testing, at 27%, 26%, and 46% for low, intermediate, and high-grade cancers, respectively. Log-rank tests to map for BCR and HRs for pathologic factors did not yield any statistically significant predictive results. Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction were reported in 1.8% and 3.1% of patients in the focal cohort. Conclusions Our results add to the expanding body of literature around the efficacy of focal ablative therapies in contrast to whole gland treatment. The definitive extent of FC's efficacy still remains to be explored, but our conclusions demonstrate favorable PSA kinetics at five years follow-up.
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.