Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40777065›Full record

ArticleBJUI compass2025

Impact of magnetic resonance imaging visibility of prostate cancer on partial gland ablation.

Masatomo Kaneko, Lorenzo Storino Ramacciotti, Yuta Inoue, Samuel Peretsman, Jessica Cummins, Jie Cai, Pierre Halteh, Suzanne Palmer, Manju Aron, Osamu Ukimura and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJUI compass, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

12 authors.

Masatomo KanekoUSC Institute of Urology, Center for Image-Guided Surgery, Focal Therapy and Artificial Intelligence for Prostate Cancer California Los Angeles USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1205-807X
Lorenzo Storino RamacciottiUSC Institute of Urology, Center for Image-Guided Surgery, Focal Therapy and Artificial Intelligence for Prostate Cancer California Los Angeles USA.
Yuta InoueUSC Institute of Urology, Center for Image-Guided Surgery, Focal Therapy and Artificial Intelligence for Prostate Cancer California Los Angeles USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0809-895X
Samuel PeretsmanUrology Specialists of the Carolinas Charlotte North Carolina USA.
Jessica CumminsUrology Specialists of the Carolinas Charlotte North Carolina USA.
Jie CaiUSC Institute of Urology, Center for Image-Guided Surgery, Focal Therapy and Artificial Intelligence for Prostate Cancer California Los Angeles USA.
Pierre HaltehDepartment of Radiology, Keck School of Medicine University of Southern California California Los Angeles USA.
Suzanne PalmerDepartment of Radiology, Keck School of Medicine University of Southern California California Los Angeles USA.
Manju AronUSC Institute of Urology, Center for Image-Guided Surgery, Focal Therapy and Artificial Intelligence for Prostate Cancer California Los Angeles USA.
Osamu UkimuraDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medical Science Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine Kyoto Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3443-3210
Inderbir S GillUSC Institute of Urology, Center for Image-Guided Surgery, Focal Therapy and Artificial Intelligence for Prostate Cancer California Los Angeles USA.
Andre Luis AbreuUSC Institute of Urology, Center for Image-Guided Surgery, Focal Therapy and Artificial Intelligence for Prostate Cancer California Los Angeles USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the outcomes of partial gland ablation (PGA) according to prostate cancer (PCa) visibility on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Subjects and Methods: Consecutive patients with localized PCa diagnosed by MRI-informed prostate biopsy (PBx), who underwent hemi-gland Cryoablation (CRYO) or hemi-gland High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU), were identified from a multicentric database. High-visibility was defined as Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) ≥ 4. The primary endpoint was treatment failure (TF), defined as Grade Group (GG) ≥ 2 on follow-up PBx (FU-PBx), any whole-gland treatment, systemic therapy, metastases or PCa-specific mortality. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were performed. Statistically significant if p < 0.05. Results: A total of 156 patients met the inclusion criteria being 96 (62%) high-visibility and 59 (38%) low-visibility groups on baseline MRI. The baseline characteristics were as follows: median age 65yo, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 6.0 ng/ml, 22% with PIRADS 1-2, 16% with PIRADS 3, 44% with PIRADS 4 and 17% with PIRADS 5. The 3-year free-survival rates for high-visible vs low-visible were: TF 57% vs 83% (p = 0.002); biochemical failure (PSA nadir + 2 ng/ml) 81% vs 72% (p = 0.5); GG ≥ 2 on FU-PBx 57% vs 85% (p < 0.001); and Radical Treatment 87% vs 85% (p = 0.9), respectively. After adjusting for confounders, the independent predictors for TF were PSA density, PSA reduction and high visibility (hazard ratio 4.83, 95% confidence interval 1.81-12.90). Conclusion: MRI visibility is an independent prognosticator for outcomes following focal therapy for prostate cancer. Patients with higher MRI visibility (PIRADS ≥4) are at an increased risk of treatment failure.

Indexed as

magnetic resonance imagingpartial gland ablationPIRADSprostate biopsyprostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID40777065
PMCPMC12328995

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.