Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42449571›Full record

ReviewCancers2026

Prostate Cancer Treatment: Cryoablation in Context.

Thomas Lilieholm, Michael C Risk, David Jarrard, Erica Knavel Koepsel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 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

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Thomas LilieholmDepartment of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53705, USA.
Michael C RiskDepartment of Urology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53705, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-5139-5894
David JarrardDepartment of Urology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53705, USA.
Erica Knavel KoepselDepartment of Interventional Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53705, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1772-8220

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the most commonly diagnosed malignancies in men worldwide, prostate cancer (PCa) is the subject of much study across various treatment approaches and medical specialties. Currently, 5-year survival rates exceed 90%, and research efforts have increasingly shifted towards approaches that improve quality of life, minimizing the likelihood and severity of morbidities associated with treatment. Focal cryoablation is an approach that has been steadily gaining traction in recent years, both for its reduced risk of morbidity and greater potential for salvage therapy, relative to standard treatment. The goal of this work is to discuss the safety and efficacy of focal cryoablation for prostate cancers and define it in context among other treatment approaches. Publications describing approaches to, results from, and the science behind PCa cryoablation were reviewed and collated, describing the current landscape. Additional comparisons were made against analogous approaches, including radiation, surgical resection, hormone therapy, and other ablation modalities. Currently available literature characterizes prostate cryoablation as an effective and well-tolerated approach for treating primary and recurrent PCa, although the data are limited by heterogeneous evidence, lack of standardized endpoints, and an absence of robust randomized comparisons. Cryoablation for prostate cancer continues to evolve, offering a minimally invasive treatment option for both primary and salvage prostate cancer patients, although additional long-term studies are needed.

Indexed as

cryoablationCTfocal therapyMRIprostatesalvage therapyultrasoundurology

Identifiers

PMID42449571
PMCPMC13360148

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.