Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38507093›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of urology2024

High-intensity focused ultrasound with visually directed power adjustment for focal treatment of localized prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Samuel J Peretsman, Mark Emberton, Neil Fleshner, Sunao Shoji, Clinton D Bahler, Larry E Miller

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. 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 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Samuel J Peretsman, Charlotte, NC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9211-3680
Mark EmbertonInterventional Oncology, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4230-0338
Neil FleshnerDepartment of Surgical Oncology Urology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7407-7463
Sunao ShojiDepartment of Urology, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6673-9316
Clinton D BahlerDepartment of Urology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0484-801X
Larry E MillerMiller Scientific, 3101 Browns Mill Road, Ste 6, #311, Johnson City, TN, 37604, USA. larry@millerscientific.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1594-1885
Foster-Miller (United States) · USIndiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis · USTokai University · JPUniversity College London · GBUniversity Health Network · CAUniversity of North Carolina at Charlotte · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo characterize patient outcomes following visually directed high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for focal treatment of localized prostate cancer.

methodsWe performed a systematic review of cancer-control outcomes and complication rates among men with localized prostate cancer treated with visually directed focal HIFU. Study outcomes were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis model.

resultsA total of 8 observational studies with 1,819 patients (median age 67 years; prostate-specific antigen 7.1 mg/ml; prostate volume 36 ml) followed over a median of 24 months were included. The mean prostate-specific antigen nadir following visually directed focal HIFU was 2.2 ng/ml (95% CI 0.9-3.5 ng/ml), achieved after a median of 6 months post-treatment. A clinically significant positive biopsy was identified in 19.8% (95% CI 12.4-28.3%) of cases. Salvage treatment rates were 16.2% (95% CI 9.7-23.8%) for focal- or whole-gland treatment, and 8.6% (95% CI 6.1-11.5%) for whole-gland treatment. Complication rates were 16.7% (95% CI 9.9-24.6%) for de novo erectile dysfunction, 6.2% (95% CI 0.0-19.0%) for urinary retention, 3.0% (95% CI 2.1-3.9%) for urinary tract infection, 1.9% (95% CI 0.1-5.3%) for urinary incontinence, and 0.1% (95% CI 0.0-1.4%) for bowel injury.

conclusionLimited evidence from eight observational studies demonstrated that visually directed HIFU for focal treatment of localized prostate cancer was associated with a relatively low risk of complications and acceptable cancer control over medium-term follow-up. Comparative, long-term safety and effectiveness results with visually directed focal HIFU are lacking.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsUltrasound, High-Intensity Focused, TransrectalHumansMaleTreatment OutcomeFocal therapyHIFUHigh-intensity focused ultrasoundMeta-analysisProstate cancerSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38507093
PMCPMC10954869
OpenAlexW4392986256

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.