Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38311374›Full record

ArticleThe world journal of men's health2024

Personalized Treatment Strategy in "Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Candidates" Using Irreversible Electroporation: Prospective Evaluation of Feasibility, Morbidity, Functional and Oncological Outcomes.

Ionel Valentin Popeneciu, Mirjam Naomi Mohr, Arne Strauß, Conrad Leitsmann, Lutz Trojan, Mathias Reichert

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The world journal of men's health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ionel Valentin PopeneciuDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Goettigen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5181-8801
Mirjam Naomi MohrDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Goettigen, Germany.
Arne StraußDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Goettigen, Germany.
Conrad LeitsmannDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Goettigen, Germany.
Lutz TrojanDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Goettigen, Germany.
Mathias ReichertDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Goettigen, Germany. mathias.reichert@med.uni-goettingen.de.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2045-5005
Nephrologisches Zentrum Goettingen · DEParacelsus Medizinische Privatuniversität · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the morbidity, functional and oncological outcome of irreversible electroporation (IRE) as a focal therapy for prostate cancer (PCa) when used in "active surveillance (AS)" candidates refusing standard treatment options. MATERIALS AND

methodsIRE was performed under general anaesthesia, and the transurethral catheter was removed one day after intervention in all patients. Pre- and post-interventional voiding parameters (measured by International Prostate Symptom Score Questionnaire [IPSS], uroflowmetry and post-void residue) were compared. Follow-up (FU) was observed over a minimum of six months, including oncological outcome (controlled by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, rebiopsy, prostate-specific antigen dynamic as well as the need and type of secondary treatment) and general functional outcome (International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire, satisfaction of the procedure).

resultsTwenty-four patients refusing AS or standard treatment with a median FU of 18.7 months were included. IPSS showed nine patients with mild, 12 with moderate and two with severe obstructive voiding symptoms pre-intervention (focal IRE). Median IPSS pre-IRE was 9 points, 8.5 (p=0.341) at six months and 10 (p=0.392) after 12 months, respectively. Pre-IRE maximum urinary flow (Qmax) (median: 16.1±8.0 mL/sec) and Qmax after catheter removal (16.2±7.6 mL/sec) did not differ significantly (p=0.904). Thirteen PCa recurrences occurred (54.2%). Out-of-lesion-PCa was found in 12/13 patients (92.3%), while 4/13 patients showed in-lesion-PCa recurrence simultaneously (30.8%). In one patient, there was an in-lesion-PCa recurrence only (7.7%). Six out of 24 patients (25.0%) received a secondary treatment. All patients were satisfied with the IRE procedure.

conclusionsFocal IRE underperforms regarding the overall oncological outcome and should not be offered as an equivalent therapy to established curative treatment strategies. Nevertheless, under a strict FU regimen, its lack of significant additional morbidity compared to an active surveillance strategy makes IRE a feasible alternative for low-risk PCa in highly selected patients as a personalised approach.

Indexed as

Irreversible electroporation therapyProstatic neoplasmsTreatment outcomeWatchful waiting

Identifiers

PMID38311374
PMCPMC11439813
OpenAlexW4391036019

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.