Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42269147›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of urology2026

Water Vapor Therapy for the Management of Prostate Cancer: The VAPOR 2 Study Initial Results of Ablative Efficacy and Toxicity.

Arvin George, Eric Giesler, Brian Mazzarella, Richard Levin, Daniel Frendl, Christopher Warlick, Robert Given, Naveen Kella, Thomas Frye, Lance Mynderse and 16 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

26 authors.

Arvin GeorgeJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Eric GieslerUrology Austin, Austin, Texas.
Brian MazzarellaUrology Austin, Austin, Texas.
Richard LevinChesapeake Urology, Annapolis, Maryland.
Daniel FrendlMayo Clinic-Scottsdale, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Christopher WarlickUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Robert GivenUrology of Virginia, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Naveen KellaThe Urology Place, San Antonio, Texas.
Thomas FryeUniversity of Rochester, Rochester, New York.
Lance MynderseMayo Clinic-Rochester, Rochester, Minnesota.
Ali KasraeianKasraeian Urology, Jacksonville, Florida.
Aaron MilbankMinnesota Urology, Woodbury, Minnesota.
Phillippe NabboutWichita Urology, Wichita, Kansas.
Ivan GrunbergerNorthwell Health, North New Hyde Park, New York.
Ardeshir RastinehadNorthwell Health, North New Hyde Park, New York.
Michael SchwartzNorthwell Health, North New Hyde Park, New York.
James WysockNew York University Langone Health, New York, New York.
Michael RousseauThe Urology Group, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Marc PliskinThe Urology Group, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Raj SatkunasivamHouston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, Texas.
David RichCarolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
Neal D ShoreCarolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
Jose MorenoMidLantic Urology, Pottstown, Pennsylvania.
Laurence BelkoffMidLantic Urology, Pottstown, Pennsylvania.
Abhinav SidanaUniversity of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Samir S TanejaNorthwell Health, North New Hyde Park, New York.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AquablationProstatic NeoplasmsSteamAgedFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeSteamimage-guided biopsyminimally invasive surgical proceduresprostatic neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID42269147
PMCPMC13561094

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.