ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2026
Medicolegal landscape of prostate cancer ablative therapy: a national legal database analysis of malpractice claims (1970-2024).
Article 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.
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.
- Irreversible electroporation in focal therapy for prostate cancer: current status and future directions.Prostate international · 2026Review
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
Abstract
backgroundWith the advancement of MR-based imaging, prostate cancer ablative therapies have seen increased interest to reduce complications of prostate cancer treatment. Although less invasive, they do carry procedural risks, including rectal injury. To date, the medicolegal aspects of ablative therapy remain underexplored. In this study, we aim to analyze malpractice lawsuits related to prostate cancer ablative therapies using a national legal database.
methodsIn this retrospective study, we utilized the LexisNexis Database to analyze ablative therapy malpractice lawsuits between 1970 and 2024. We searched for keywords "ablative therapy" "focal therapy" "high-intensity focused ultrasound" "HIFU" "cryotherapy" "cryoablation" "laser" "irreversible electroporation" and "IRE" We excluded cases that did not involve ablative treatment of prostate cancer. We then reviewed cases for treatment method, allegation, claimed liabilities, verdict, and plaintiff award.
resultsWe identified 180 lawsuits using the keywords provided, and 5 cases met inclusion criteria. All five lawsuits involved cryoablation for prostate cancer. The most common precipitating injury was rectal injury (3, 60%). Allegations included negligence (2, 25%), deviation from the standard of care (2, 25%), deliberate indifference (2, 25%), and failure to consent (2, 25%). Verdicts were predominantly favorable to defendants (4, 80%), and one case (20%) resulted in an unknown outcome.
conclusionsAblative therapy had a limited number of lawsuits, with outcomes favorable to surgeons and minimal financial payouts. As ablative therapy continues to gain popularity, urologists must practice proper surgical techniques, conduct thorough informed consent, and exercise excellent patient-provider communication to help minimize the occurrence and impact of litigations involving ablative therapy. These findings may help guide future patient risk counseling and support adjustments in malpractice insurance policies as the use of ablative therapies expands, while also informing physicians and hospital systems considering their adoption or expansion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40926180What 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.