ArticleThe Journal of urology2026
Water Vapor Therapy for the Management of Prostate Cancer: The VAPOR 2 Study Initial Results of Ablative Efficacy and Toxicity.
Article in The Journal of urology, 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
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe safety and effectiveness of water vapor for ablation of prostate tissue was assessed in men with intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIALS AND
methodsA prospective, multicenter, single-arm study (VAPOR 2) was conducted in 235 men at 26 centers across the United States in men ≥ 50 years, with Gleason Grade Group 2 PCa confined to a single Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 or 4 abnormality on multiparametric MRI fusion biopsy, PSA level ≤ 15 ng/mL, and clinical stage ≤ T2c. Data presented are a predefined subset analysis of 110 men completing 12-month follow-up to assess only ablative efficacy and toxicity. Reported outcomes include biopsy 6 months post treatment PSA, prostate volume reduction, urinary/sexual function, quality-of-life questionnaires, and adverse events. The 3-year follow-up analysis will evaluate efficacy in PCa management, with 5 years of total follow-up.
resultsThe median age was 65 years, with a median baseline PSA of 5.6 ng/mL and prostate volume of 40.7 cc. On 6-month biopsy, targeted sampling of the treated region revealed benign tissue only in 75% and benign tissue or Gleason Grade Group 1 PCa in 91%. Regression analysis did not identify a significant baseline predictor of positive biopsy. PSA showed a median reduction of 58%, with a median 8 cc reduction in prostate volume. Urinary and sexual function showed an initial decline followed by gradual recovery through 12 months. Perioperative adverse events were generally mild and resolved without sequelae, with no reports of rectal injury.
conclusionsThe VAPOR 2 study demonstrated effective ablation of prostate tissue in men with localized, intermediate-risk PCa with low rates of procedural morbidity.
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.