SynthesisInternational urology and nephrology2026
Evaluating less-invasive strategies for localized prostate cancer: a comparative meta-analysis on high-intensity focused ultrasound versus radical prostatectomy.
Synthesis in International urology and nephrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeProstate cancer is frequently managed with radical prostatectomy (RP), which can offer excellent oncological control but with significant genitourinary morbidity. High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) has emerged as a less-invasive alternative. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the oncological, functional, and safety outcomes of HIFU versus RP in men with localized prostate cancer.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane through December 2024 for comparative studies of HIFU and RP. Fourteen studies (including two randomized trials) met inclusion criteria. The primary endpoint was salvage therapy-free survival (STFS). Secondary outcomes included biochemical recurrence, metastasis-free survival, functional outcomes, and complications. Random-effect models were applied, and meta-regression explored sources of heterogeneity.
resultsOverall, HIFU was associated with lower STFS (odds ratio [OR]: 0.65, p = 0.02) although biochemical recurrence and metastasis-free survival did not differ significantly between treatments. Focal HIFU showed fewer major complications (OR: 0.36) and significantly better erectile function preservation (OR: 6.03), but minor complications were slightly more frequent. High heterogeneity was partly explained by study design and follow-up duration. Limitations include substantial heterogeneity, variable definitions of outcomes, and relatively short follow-ups in some studies.
conclusionFor selected patients, biochemical recurrence and metastasis-free survival did not differ significantly between treatments although HIFU was associated with lower STFS. Particularly as focal therapy, it shows the potential to achieve oncologic outcomes comparable to radical prostatectomy while enhancing erectile function preservation, urinary continence, and reducing major complications. Further long-term prospective studies are warranted to solidify these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40742653What 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.