Current evidence for focal therapy and partial gland ablation for organ-confined prostate cancer: systematic review of literature published in the last 2 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The shift in the diagnostic algorithm for prostate cancer to early imaging with mpMRI has resulted in many patients being diagnosed with small volume, apparently unilateral, clinically significant cancers. In these patients, a minimally invasive, nonmorbid intervention is appealing. The aim of this study was to review data reported within the last 2 years on focal therapy and partial gland ablation for organ-confined prostate cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: High-intensity focal ultrasound, focal cryotherapy, photodynamic therapy, irreversible electroporation and focal laser ablation, have been used as treatment modalities for localized prostate cancer treatment. The reported oncologic outcomes vary widely and makes comparisons challenging. All the focal therapies report low rates of complications, and high rates of continence and erectile function preservation. The most common adverse events are hematuria, urinary retention and urinary tract infections. During this period, the initial results of several new technologies including MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation were published. SUMMARY: Focal therapy and partial gland ablation for organ-confined prostate cancer is an option for patients with intermediate-risk disease because of its low complication profile and preservation of QOL. Trials comparing the outcome of different focal therapy technologies have not been carried out, and the existing evidence does not point to one approach being clearly superior to others. Long-term oncologic outcome is lacking. Despite this, for men with unilateral intermediate-risk prostate cancer whose disease is often relatively indolent, focal therapy is an appealing option.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".