ReviewCancers2025
Oncological Efficacy and Safety of Minimally Invasive Focal and Whole-Gland Interventions in the Treatment of Low- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveMinimally invasive interventions, including irreversible electroporation (IRE), cryoablation, and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), offer promising alternatives for the treatment of low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. We aimed to evaluate the oncological efficacy and safety of these treatments.
methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, Central, and EMBASE was conducted up to 5 January 2025, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Recurrence, complication, survival, biochemical, and retreatment rates were evaluated, with risk of bias assessed using the Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) and Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tools.
results85 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 42 prospective cohort studies, 36 retrospective cohort studies, six registries, and one randomized controlled trial. Whole-gland HIFU showed significantly lower recurrence (15%) and postoperative mean PSA levels (0.68 ng/mL) than focal HIFU (24%, 2.81 ng/mL). Recurrence rates were similar for focal vs. extended IRE (30% vs. 26%) and focal vs. whole-gland cryoablation (18% vs. 13%). In-field and out-of-field recurrence rates were similar across treatment modalities (5-15%). Retreatment rates were low, with 6-7% of patients receiving a second ablation and 2-8% progressing to radical or hormonal therapy. Major complications were consistently rare. One-year biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) exceeded 95%, and five-year BRFS approached 80% for HIFU and cryoablation.
conclusionsMinimally invasive focal and whole-gland therapies are safe and effective for treating low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer, with high survival and low major complication rates. Notably, whole-gland HIFU achieves superior biochemical control and lower recurrence than focal HIFU, emphasizing the clinical importance of treatment extent.
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.