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 OpenAlex
Catharina Ribeiro Lyra, Alice Matos Fontes, José de Bessa, William Carlos Nahas, Leopoldo Alves Ribeiro‐Filho, Caio Vinícius Suartz

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.131
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