The Oncological Outcome of HIFU for the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Prostate cancer is considered one of the most important health problems. Due to the increased number of diagnosed patients and the inability to distinguish aggressive tumors, minimally-invasive procedures have become increasingly interesting. High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is an alternative option to radical surgery to treat prostate cancer. To date, however, no data are available on the efficacy of this technique in comparison to standard treatment. Methods and Results: We reviewed the literature to concentrate on the oncological outcome of HIFU treatment of prostate cancer with the following key words: hifu, high intensity focused ultrasound, ultrasonic therapy, transrectal hifu, prostate ablation. MedLine and Embase via Ovid database were searched. Selection criteria were: English language, articles published between 2006 and 2013, case series including more than 150 participants and reported data on oncological outcome. Thirteen uncontrolled studies were identified. No randomized controlled trials (RCT) were found in the literature comparing HIFU to other routine approaches to prostate cancer treatment. Conclusion: HIFU seems to be a promising minimally-invasive treatment for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer, especially for patients who are unfit for radical surgery. Prospective studies with longer follow-up periods and RCT are required to properly assess the benefits of HIFU and to compare this treatment with standard treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".