ArticleLa Radiologia medica2026
Oncological efficacy, functional outcomes and safety of MR-guided ultrasound ablation (MRgFUS/TULSA) for localized prostate cancer: a scoping review.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
MR-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) and transurethral ultrasound ablation (TULSA) have emerged as MRI-guided, minimally invasive options for men with localized prostate cancer who seek tissue-preserving alternatives to radical therapy. This scoping review mapped and synthesized clinical studies published since 2015 on MRgFUS and TULSA in primary and recurrent disease, focusing on indications, oncologic efficacy, functional outcomes, and safety. A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus identified 34 eligible studies, mostly single-arm series in men with organ-confined, low- to intermediate-risk cancer, with smaller cohorts including high-risk and post-radiotherapy patients. Across whole-gland TULSA series, 12-24‑month biopsy‑negative rates ranged roughly from two thirds to almost all patients, with marked PSA declines, while focal MRgFUS consistently achieved very high in‑field control but showed relevant rates of out‑of‑field recurrence on systematic biopsy in multifocal disease. Urinary continence was generally preserved (pad‑free rates close to 100%), and erectile function was maintained in most men, particularly after focal treatments, clearly outperforming historical radical prostatectomy series in functional terms. Adverse events were predominantly mild and transient, with serious complications concentrated in salvage procedures after radiotherapy. Overall, MRgFUS and TULSA appear safe and effective for carefully selected patients, but heterogeneity of study designs, short follow‑up, and limited comparative data underscore the need for randomized trials and longer-term outcomes to define their precise role in prostate cancer management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42056384What 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.