ArticleThe Canadian journal of urology2026
Pathologic failure and salvage approaches following focal therapy for localized prostate cancer.
Article in The Canadian 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFocal therapy (FT) is an emerging treatment modality for localized prostate cancer. However, limited data are available regarding the patterns of oncologic failure post-FT. This study aims to characterize the features of oncologic failure and salvage strategies following FT.
methodsPatients presenting with pathologic failure (PF) after receiving FT (cryotherapy, High-intensity focused ultrasound, or irreversible electroporation) for intermediate-risk prostate cancer were selected from a prospective registry between 2018 and 2023. All patients underwent protocol-based follow-up, including PSA testing, multiparametric MRI, and mandatory biopsy. The primary outcome was PF, defined as biopsy-confirmed Grade Group ≥2 cancer post-treatment. Failures were classified as in-field or out-of-field based on lesion location relative to the ablation zone.
resultsThis study included 101 patients who underwent primary FT, with a median follow-up of 16.5 months. PF occurred in 18 patients (17.8%). Failures included 7 in-field, 9 out-of-field, and 2 involving both locations. Notably, 50% of recurrences had no suspicious findings on MRI, and 67% occurred without meeting Phoenix PSA criteria for biochemical recurrence. Failures were typically low-volume (mean longest positive core length 4.8 mm), and 11 were detected within the first 12 months of follow-up. Among those with PF, definitive salvage treatments included repeat FT (55.6%), active surveillance (16.7%), radical prostatectomy (11.1%), whole-gland ablation (5.6%), and radiation therapy (11.1%).
conclusionsFocal therapy is increasingly used for localized prostate cancer, but many failures occur without PSA rise or imaging abnormalities. These findings suggest that although PSA testing and imaging are valuable for surveillance after FT, biopsy remains essential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42682046What 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.