ArticleBJUI compass2025
Impact of magnetic resonance imaging visibility of prostate cancer on partial gland ablation.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Image-fusion-guided focal irreversible electroporation for prostate cancer: Step-by-step technique.BJUI compass · 2026Article
- Hemigland cryoablation versus high-intensity focused ultrasound for localized prostate cancer: a propensity-weighted comparison of functional and oncologic outcomes.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Impact of magnetic resonance imaging visibility of prostate cancer on partial gland ablation.BJUI compass · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.