ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2026
10-year oncological outcomes of EBRT versus HIFU for stage II prostate cancer: a multicenter Chang Gung research database (CGRD) study with inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis.
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. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate oncological outcome of external beam radiation therapy(EBRT) versus high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) in patients with stage II prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed patients with stage II prostate cancer from the Chang Gung Research Database spanning the years 2005 to 2022. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was performed to achieve baseline equivalence. Oncology outcomes including overall survival (OS) and cancer specific survival (CSS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves before and after IPTW adjustment. Subgroup analysis of stage IIa, IIb, and IIc were also conducted. We use cox proportional hazards analyses to further evaluate the association between treatment and survival outcomes.
resultsTotal of 176 EBRT and 244 HIFU procedures were identified. EBRT group has higher overall mortality (9.2% compared to 16.7% after IPTW; standardized difference 0.224) and cancer specific mortality (5.4% compared to 9.2% after IPTW; standardized difference 0.144) after IPTW adjustment. An overall survival benefit is observed in the HIFU group for all stage II prostate cancer cases, with a particularly significant advantage in the stage IIa subgroup after IPTW adjustment (p = 0.032). Although the cancer-specific survival benefit slightly favors the HIFU stage IIa subgroup after IPTW adjustment, it does not reach statistical significance (p = 0.069). EBRT is associated with significantly worse OS compared to HIFU across univariate, multivariate, and IPTW-adjusted Cox regression models, with hazard ratios ranging from 2.03 to 2.63 (all p 0.05). However, for CSS, a significant difference was found only in the univariate model (HR = 2.38, p = 0.032), and this association was not maintained after adjustment.
conclusionsHIFU demonstrates non-inferior overall survival and cancer specific survival compared to EBRT in patients with stage II prostate cancer, particularly in the stage IIa subgroup after more than 10 years of follow-up. Further randomized prospective studies are needed to evaluate the oncological outcomes of different prostate cancer treatment modalities.
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.