Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39256551›Full record

SynthesisProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2025

MRI accuracy for recurrence after partial gland ablation with HIFU for localized prostate cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Denis Séguier, Philippe Puech, Eric Barret, Xavier Leroy, Julien Labreuche, Raphael Renard Penna, Guillaume Ploussard, Arnauld Villers, Jonathan Olivier

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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 · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. 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

9 authors.

Denis SéguierUrology Department, Claude Huriez Hospital, CHU Lille, Lille, France. denis.seguier@chu-lille.fr.
Philippe PuechRadiology Department, Claude Huriez Hospital, CHU Lille, Lille, France.
Eric BarretDepartment of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France.
Xavier LeroyUniversity Lille, CNRS, INSERM, CHU Lille, Institut Pasteur de Lille, UMR9020-U1277-CANTHER-Cancer Heterogeneity Plasticity and Resistance to Therapies, F-59000, Lille, France.
Julien LabreucheCHU Lille, Department of Biostatistics, F59000, Lille, France.
Raphael Renard PennaAP-HP, Radiology, Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Guillaume PloussardDepartment of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hôpital, Quint Fonsegrives, Paris, France.
Arnauld VillersUrology Department, Claude Huriez Hospital, CHU Lille, Lille, France.
Jonathan OlivierUrology Department, Claude Huriez Hospital, CHU Lille, Lille, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5409-2911

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProstate cancer remains the most frequently diagnosed cancer among men. High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) has emerged as a thermal ablative technique for partial-gland-ablation (PGA), aiming to minimize collateral damage while maximizing tumor control. Monitoring after HIFU PGA relies on serial PSA testing, multiparametric-MRI, and biopsies. The diagnostic accuracy of MRI for clinically-significant cancer(csPCa) recurrence is challenging.

objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the accuracy of MRI in detecting early recurrence of localized prostate cancer following HIFU PGA.

methodsAdhering to PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted until May 8

resultsFifteen studies meet the inclusion criteria, encompassing 1093 patients and 12 studies were eligible for meta-analysis. MRI sensitivity in detecting clinically-significant prostate cancer (csPCa) recurrence post HIFU PGA varied widely (0-89%), with a pooled sensitivity of 0.52 (95% CI:0.36-0.68). Specificity ranged from 44% to 100%, with a pooled specificity of 0.81 (95% CI:0.68-0.91). The pooled NPV was 0.82 (95% CI:0.72-0.90), and the pooled PPV was 0.50 (95% CI:0.35-0.65). Three studies reported in-field diagnostic performance with sensitivities ranging from 0.42 to 0.80 and specificities from 0.45 to 0.97.

conclusionMRI accuracy for clinically-significant recurrence after partial gland ablation with HIFU for localized prostate cancer shows low diagnostic performance in the treated lobe with pooled sensitivity of 0.52 (95% CI:0.36-0.68) and specificity of 0.81 (95% CI:0.68-0.91). Limits of this review include the low number of studies reporting about site of recurrence in or out of the treated lobe.

Indexed as

High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound AblationMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalProstatic NeoplasmsUltrasound, High-Intensity Focused, TransrectalHumansMale

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.