ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2025
Feasibility of MRI-Guided Transperineal Implantation of Microdevices for Drug Delivery and Response Assessment in Prostate Cancer.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2025. 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.
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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProstate cancer (PCa) treatment often involves systemic therapies with varying mechanisms of action, affecting individuals differently. Implantable microdevices (IMDs) are designed to test multiple drugs within a patient's tumor, but the feasibility of MRI-guided placement in PCa has not been evaluated. PURPOSE: To provide proof of concept for placing IMDs into lesions with MRI guidance to predict patient-specific responses to therapies. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: Fifteen participants undergoing prostatectomy for PCa. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3T MRI With T2-weighted (T2W). ASSESSMENT: In-bore MRI-targeted placement of IMDs was performed. Intra-procedural MRI scans were reviewed by a radiologist, using needle artifacts on T2W images to guide IMD placement. A genitourinary pathologist performed Gleason scoring around the IMDs. Drug response analysis included Enzalutamide + Nivolumab, Enzalutamide + Docetaxel, and single-agent Enzalutamide. STATISTICAL TESTS: Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables, p < 0.05 for significance.
resultsOf 53 IMDs implanted into suspicious lesions in 14 participants, 48 (90%) were successfully placed within the lesions. The average distance from the needle tip to the tumor was 8.32 ± 4.02 mm. Larger lesion size (p = 0.009) and lower prostate imaging-reporting and data system score (p = 0.031) were significantly associated with successful IMD placement. Of the 53 IMDs, 49 (92.4%) were retrieved for histopathology and drug response analysis. In four participants, Gleason scores around the device were lower than preplacement biopsy in two and equal in two. Additionally, drug analysis in one patient demonstrated the feasibility of drug response analysis, revealing differences in apoptotic index, lymphocyte infiltration, dysplastic cell composition, and cellular profiles for each treatment. No complications or adverse events occurred.
conclusionIMDs can be effectively and safely placed in prostate lesions using MRI guidance, with feasible histological and drug response analyses. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 2. Technical Efficacy: Stage 1.
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.