MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414163807 · doi:10.1016/j.clinsp.2025.100777

Partial prostatectomy in prostate cancer: a systematic review of current evidence

2025· review· en· W4414163807 on OpenAlexaff
Catharina Ribeiro Lyra, Alice Matos Fontes, José de Bessa, William Carlos Nahas, Leopoldo Alves Ribeiro‐Filho, Caio Vinícius Suartz

Bibliographic record

VenueClinics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsNOSM University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstatectomyConcordanceMagnetic resonance imagingProstateRandomized controlled trialProstate biopsyBiopsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Partial prostatectomy shows promise but lacks evidence for routine clinical use. • Partial prostatectomy has emerged as a novel surgical option aiming to preserve urinary and sexual function while maintaining oncologic control in carefully selected patients with localized prostate cancer. • Early series suggest feasibility and safety, but long-term oncological outcomes remain uncertain compared with radical prostatectomy and focal therapies. To evaluate the current evidence in the literature about partial prostatectomy as a treatment for localized prostate cancer. A systematic search of nine databases was conducted up to December 2024 to identify studies involving patients with localized prostate cancer who underwent partial prostatectomy reporting clinical epidemiological characteristics, diagnostic strategies, histopathological findings, tumor staging, functional and oncological outcomes. The primary outcome was biochemical recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes were overall survival, disease-free survival, erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, and perioperative complications. The extracted data were systematically synthesized. The authors analyzed five studies with a total of 48 patients (three prospective and two retrospective), all with low- or intermediate-risk disease. The mean surgical duration ranged from 129.2 to 208 min, with a single Clavien-Dindo Grade III complication reported. Only one study defined and reported biochemical recurrence, with a rate of 28 %. Urinary continence was preserved in 92 %–100 % of cases, while erectile function in 40 %–100 % ‒ which may represent a point of concern for this procedure. Overall survival and disease-free survival were consistently reported at 100 %. The lack of standardized reporting and the absence of randomized clinical trials prevented the performance of a meta-analysis and hindered the applicability of the findings to clinical practice. Randomized clinical trials are still needed to provide stronger evidence regarding partial prostatectomy, as current data remain insufficient to support its routine use. With further research, partial prostatectomy may become an option for patients with favorable and intermediate-risk disease with unilateral lesions and concordance between magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy findings. Until then, radical prostatectomy remains the cornerstone of treatment for this patient profile.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0080.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinicsSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207