ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2024
Irreversible Electroporation (IRE) for Prostate Cancer (PCa) Treatment: The State of the Art.
Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prostate Cancer Treatment: Cryoablation in Context.Cancers · 2026Review
- First-in-human single-cell and TCR atlas reveals peripheral immune remodeling before and after irreversible electroporation in prostate cancer.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2026Article
- Article
- Cancer metastasis: molecular mechanisms and therapeutic interventions.Molecular biomedicine · 2025Review
- Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Recent Advances and Insights.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluated the most recent research from 2000 to 2023 in order to deeply investigate the applications of PCa IRE, first exploring its usage with primary intent and then salvage intent. Finally, we discuss the differences with other focal PCa treatments. In the case of primary-intent IRE, the in-field recurrence is quite low (ranges from 0% to 33%). Urinary continence after the treatment remains high (>86%). Due to several different patients in the studies, the preserved potency varied quite a lot (59-100%). Regarding complications, the highest occurrence rates are for those of Grades I and II (20-77% and 0-29%, respectively). Grade III complications represent less than 7%. Regarding the specific oncological outcomes, both PCa-specific survival and overall survival are 100%. Metastasis-free survival is 99.6%. In a long-term study, the Kaplan-Meier FFS rates reported are 91% at 3 years, 84% at 5 years, and 69% at 8 years. In the single study with salvage-intent IRE, the in-field recurrence was 7%. Urinary continence was still high (93%), but preserved potency was significantly lower than primary-intent IRE patients (23%). In addition, Grade III complications were slightly higher (10.8%). In conclusion, in males with localized low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer, IRE had an excellent safety profile and might have positive results for sexual and urinary function.
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.