The use of focal therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Focal therapy is an emerging treatment for localized prostate cancer (PCa). The objectives of this review were to: 1) review how focal therapies are regulated and approved; 2) summarize the scope and quality of the literature regarding safety, efficacy, and side-effects; and 3) outline ongoing clinical trials of focal therapy in Canada. METHODS: Using the PRISMA framework for scoping reviews, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane from 2021-2024, complementing Hopstaken et al's search up to 2020. We focused on studies reporting functional and oncologic outcomes. Additionally, we examined the FDA database for regulatory details and ongoing trials in Canada via ClinicalTrials.gov. RESULTS: FDA approval for prostate tissue ablation was granted to high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) in 2015 via the de novo pathway; other therapies followed the 510(k) route, citing equivalence to predicate devices. Most studies are in early stages, primarily single-arm, prospective cohort designs. Oncologic outcomes like cancer detection and survival rates, alongside functional data, such as adverse events and erectile function, were assessed. Recurrence-free survival at 48 months ranged from 58-92%, pad-free rates were greater than 95%, and rates of new-onset erectile dysfunction were variable, ranging from no change to 50%. Rates of serious adverse events were low, ranging from 0-14%. Three Canadian clinical trials are actively enrolling participants, and five private clinics were found offering private HIFU, irreversible electroporation, or transurethral ultrasound ablation. CONCLUSIONS: Focal therapy technologies have gained regulatory approval for prostate tissue ablation, and aside from provincial support for cryoablation in Alberta, are available to Canadians through private payment or clinical trials. Many studies demonstrate promising cancer control and impressive functional outcomes but are limited by their short followup and lack of comparator group. Clinical trial or registry participation should be prioritized to ensure an evidence-based integration into current prostate cancer treatment approaches.
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 | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".