High Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Prostate Cancer: A Review of the Scientific Foundation, Technology and Clinical Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) is a definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer that is currently utilized most in Europe and Japan but it not yet approved by the FDA for this indication. Within the armamentarium of definitive prostate cancer therapies it is unique as it is truly non-invasive and does not involve incision or excision. The purpose of this paper is to review the scientific foundation of the technology as well as the clinical outcomes of commercially available devices. The scientific foundation of HIFU is reviewed in terms of how it has resulted in the development of commercially available equipment. MEDLINE was used to search the medical literature for publications pertaining to HIFU for prostate cancer as a primary therapy in terms of clinical outcomes. Biochemical disease free rates as well as negative biopsy rates are reviewed. Different engineering optimization strategies in the face of technicalities inherent to HIFU for prostate cancer have led to the development of two distinct commercially available devices. Each has their own merits and limitations. HIFU provides excellent biochemical and local control and results appear to be durable. Clinical outcomes are similar for the two technologies developed but are difficult to compare due to different lengths of follow-up and varying patient populations. HIFU is a technically advanced definitive local therapy for prostate cancer. Short and medium term results are encouraging and its role as a primary therapy for prostate cancer continues to be defined as more results become available.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".