Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40506900›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Post-Treatment Imaging in Focal Therapy: Understanding TARGET and PI-FAB Scoring Systems.

Haidy Megahed, Samuel Tremblay, Jason Koehler, Simon Han, Ahmed Hamimi, Aytekin Oto, Abhinav Sidana

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

7 authors.

Haidy MegahedSection of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.ORCID 0009-0002-4763-9541
Samuel TremblaySection of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0982-655X
Jason KoehlerCollege of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45267, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4533-3813
Simon HanPritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5743-2010
Ahmed HamimiDepartment of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
Aytekin OtoDepartment of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
Abhinav SidanaSection of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the adoption of focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa) grows, the demand for accurate post-treatment imaging to monitor outcomes and detect residual or recurrent cancer increases. Traditional diagnostic systems like the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) are ill-suited for post-FT evaluations due to treatment-induced tissue changes. MRI-based scoring systems specific for evaluation after FT have been developed to address these challenges and improve post-FT imaging accuracy by distinguishing benign alterations from recurrence. The currently developed scoring systems are Transatlantic Recommendations for Prostate Gland Evaluation with MRI after Focal Therapy (TARGET) and Prostate Imaging after Focal Ablation (PI-FAB). In this review, we describe and compare these two systems. These scoring systems standardize imaging assessments, enhance follow-up care, and support clinical decision-making. While promising, TARGET and PI-FAB require further large-scale validation to confirm their utility. Nevertheless, they represent critical advances in optimizing PCa management, particularly for patients undergoing FT, by improving diagnostic accuracy and guiding treatment decisions.

Indexed as

focal therapyMRI scoringPI-FABprostate cancerTARGET

Identifiers

PMID40506900
PMCPMC12155418

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.