ArticleProstate international2026
External validation of the cancer of the prostate risk assessment score to predict treatment failure after high-intensity focused ultrasound.
Article in Prostate international, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is an emerging treatment for localized prostate cancer, but prognostic tools validated in this setting are lacking. This study aimed to determine whether the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score predicts biochemical recurrence (BR) and treatment failure (TF) after whole-gland HIFU. Materials and methods: retrospective cohort of 208 patients treated with HIFU at a Brazilian tertiary center between 2011 and 2019 was selected for this study. Patients were stratified using the CAPRA score (range: 0-10; low: 0-2, intermediate: 3-5, and high: 6-10). BR was defined by the Phoenix criterion. TF included salvage treatment, metastasis, systemic therapy, or prostate cancer-specific death. Kaplan-Meier, Cox regression, and time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve analyses assessed prognostic performance. Calibration was evaluated with bootstrapped Cox models at 5 years. Results: At a median follow-up of 47 months, the CAPRA score predicted BR (hazard ratio: 1.36, 95% confidence interval: 1.20-1.55) and TF (hazard ratio: 1.49, 95% confidence interval: 1.29-1.72). Five-year BR-free survival was 81.5%, 50.7%, and 16.4% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively. Areas under the curve for BR and TF at 60 months were 0.747 and 0.783, respectively. The CAPRA score stratified risk within D'Amico groups. Calibration was good for both outcomes. Limitations include retrospective design, single-center data, and the absence of systematic post-HIFU biopsy. Conclusions: The CAPRA score is a valid predictor of oncological outcomes after HIFU and provides additional risk stratification beyond traditional systems. Its simplicity and accuracy support its integration into clinical decision-making for patients undergoing prostate ablation. Prospective multicenter studies are needed for broader validation.
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.