Salvage High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Prostate Cancer after Radiation Failure: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, there are multiple treatment options available. The traditional treatment modalities include radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy. Nevertheless, focal therapy, including high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and cryotherapy, has emerged as a less-invasive method in this setting. Some patients undergoing primary radiation therapy experience recurrence, but there is currently no consensus on the optimal approach for salvage treatment in such cases. The lack of robust data and randomized controlled trials comparing different whole-gland and focal salvage therapies presents a challenge in determining the ideal treatment strategy. This narrative review examines the prospective and retrospective data available on salvage HIFU following radiation therapy. Based on the literature, salvage HIFU for radio-recurrent prostate cancer has promising oncological outcomes, with an overall 5-year survival rate of around 85%, as well as incontinence rates of about 30% based on the patient's risk group, follow-up times, definitions used, and other aspects of the study. Salvage HIFU for prostate cancer proves to be an effective treatment modality for select patients with biochemical recurrence following radiotherapy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".