MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205246648 · doi:10.1089/end.2021.0866

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Transurethral Ultrasound Ablation of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

2022· article· en· W4205246648 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endourology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsProfound Medical (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstateProstate cancerAblationAdverse effectLower urinary tract symptomsMagnetic resonance imagingCochrane LibraryProstate-specific antigenPotency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation (TULSA) uses real-time MR thermometry feedback to target prostate disease. We systematically review the literature to synthesize efficacy, functional, and safety outcomes and assess the influence of planned ablation fraction on outcome. Materials and Methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to June 2021 following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies reporting at least one efficacy, functional, or safety outcome after a single TULSA treatment were included. The relationship of freedom from salvage treatment and potency preservation with planned ablation volume was modeled. Results: Two hundred twenty-four patients were treated in 10 studies with up to a 5-year follow-up, mainly for primary localized prostate cancer (PCa) plus smaller cohorts with recurrent PCa, and locally advanced PCa (LAPC). The prostate-specific antigen decline from baseline up to 2 years, including focal to whole-gland ablation plans, was 54% to 97%. The rate of salvage treatment after one TULSA treatment for primary PCa was 7% to 17%. Continence and potency preservation were from 92% to 100% and from 75% to 98%. Urinary symptoms were stable in men with good voiding function at baseline, and 85% of men with concurrent PCa and lower urinary tract symptoms met the criteria for improvement. Symptom relief in a small cohort of men with LAPC was observed. Grade III adverse events were incurred by 13/224 men (6%), with no rectal injury/fistula or Grade IV complication. The planned ablation fraction was linearly related to salvage-free survival. The relationship between potency preservation and planned ablation fraction followed a sigmoid curve. Conclusions: As an alternative to conventional treatments, TULSA is safe and effective for prostate tissue ablation in men with primary PCa. There is also evidence that TULSA delivers effective relief of urinary symptoms while treating PCa in a single, low-morbidity procedure. The likelihood of freedom from additional treatment or potency preservation is associated with the planned ablation fraction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EndourologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207