Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39367182›Full record

ReviewProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2025

Surveillance after Focal Therapy - a Comprehensive Review.

Giancarlo Marra, Alessandro Marquis, Michel Suberville, Henry Woo, Alexander Govorov, Andres Hernandez-Porras, Kamran Bhatti, Baris Turkbey, Aaron E Katz, Thomas J Polascik

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Current Status of Cryoablation in Prostate Cancer Management.Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 2025
    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

10 authors.

Giancarlo Marra *Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, City of Health and Science, Molinette Hospital and University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Alessandro Marquis *Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, City of Health and Science, Molinette Hospital and University of Turin, Turin, Italy. alessandro.marquis@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-6808-148X
Michel SubervilleDepartment of Urology, Pôle Saint Germain Centre Hospitalier de Brive, Brive la Gaillarde, France.
Henry WooDepartment of Urology, Blacktown Mount Druitt Hospitals, Blacktown, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4099-0339
Alexander GovorovDepartment of Urology of ROSUNIMED, Botkin Hospital, Moscow, Russia.
Andres Hernandez-PorrasHoPe Robotic Urology, Hospital Angeles, Tijuana, Mexico.
Kamran BhattiUrology Department, Hamad Medical Corporation, Alkhor, Qatar.ORCID 0000-0003-4259-8250
Baris TurkbeyMolecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Aaron E KatzDepartment of Urology, NYU Winthrop Hospital, Garden City, NY, USA.
Thomas J PolascikDepartment of Urology and Duke Cancer Institute, Duke Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundto date, no standardized, evidence-based follow-up schemes exist for the monitoring of patients who underwent focal therapy (FT) and expert centers rely mainly on their own experience and/or institutional protocols. We aimed to perform a comprehensive review of the most advantageous follow-up strategies and their rationale after FT for prostate cancer (PCa).

methodsa narrative review of the literature was conducted to investigate different follow-up protocols of FT for PCa. Outcomes of interest were post-ablation oncological and functional outcomes and complications.

resultsOncological success after FT was generally defined as the biopsy-confirmed absence of clinically significant PCa in the treated zone. De novo PCa in the untreated area usually reflects an inaccurate patient selection and should be treated as primary PCa. During follow-up, oncological outcomes should be evaluated with periodic PSA, multiparametric MRI and prostate biopsy. The use of PSA derivatives and new biomarkers is still controversial and therefore not recommended. The first MRI after FT should be performed between 6-12 months to avoid ablation-related artifacts and diagnostic delay in case of FT failure. Other imaging modalities, such as PSMA PET/CT scan, are promising but still need to be validated in the post-FT setting. A 12-month "for-protocol" prostate biopsy, including targeted and systematic biopsy, was generally considered the preferred biopsy method to rule out tumor persistence/recurrence. Subsequent mpMRIs and biopsies should follow a risk-adapted approach depending on the clinical scenario. Functional outcomes should be periodically assessed using validated questionnaires within the first year, when typically recover to a new baseline. Complications, despite uncommon, should be strictly monitored mainly in the first month.

conclusionsFT follow-up is a multifaceted process involving clinical, radiological, and histological assessment. Studies evaluating the impact of different follow-up strategies and ideal timings are needed to produce standardized protocols following FT.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleProstate-Specific AntigenProstate-Specific Antigen

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.