ArticleUrology research & practice2024
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Cancer.
Article in Urology research & practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveProstate cancer is the second- leading cause of cancer death among men. We aimed to evaluate high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), open radical prostatectomy (ORP), robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), and external beam radiation therapy (RT) in the treatment of localized low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
methodsWe searched bibliographic databases for case-control, cohort, and randomized controlled studies. We used MeSH subject headings and free text terms for prostate cancer, HIFU, ORP, RARP, RT, failure-free survival (FFS), biochemical disease-free survival (BDFS), urinary incontinence (UI), and erectile dysfunction (ED).
resultsFourteen studies were included in the review, for a total of 34 927 participants. Among the 8 studies of HIFU as the primary treatment of localized low- and intermediate- risk prostate cancer, 4 studies reported 5-year FFS rates ranging from 67.8% to 97.8%, 3 studies reported 5-year BDFS ranging from 58% to 85.4%, 5 studies reported 1-year UI rates ranging from 0% to 6%, and 4 studies reported 1-year ED rates ranging from 11.4% to 38.7%. Furthermore, our search revealed a 5-year FFS benefit favoring ORP compared to RT, a 1-year UI rate favoring ORP compared to RARP, and a 1-year ED rate favoring ORP compared to RARP.
conclusionOur systematic review and meta-analysis revealed lack of studies with active comparators comparing HIFU to standard of care (ORP, RARP, or RT) in primary treatment of localized low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Open radical prostatectomy has favorable efficacy outcomes compared to RT, while RARP has beneficial functional outcomes compared to ORP, respectively.
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.