MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416021469 · doi:10.1016/j.prnil.2025.11.001

Irreversible electroporation in focal therapy for prostate cancer: current status and future directions

2025· article· en· W4416021469 on OpenAlexaff
Francisco O. Durazo-Ruiz, Rocío Roldán-Testillano, Lara Rodríguez‐Sánchez, M. Pilar Laguna, Liam Nicholas Mendez-Bisgaard, Adel Arezki, Hani M. EL-Khatib, Alejandro Hevia-Feliu, Kai Zhang, Jonathan Fainberg, Nathan Perlis, Jean de la Rosette, B. Miñana, Theo M. de Reijke, Maurice Anidjar, Mark Emberton, Phillip D. Stricker, Rafael Sánchez-Salas

Bibliographic record

VenueProstate International · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrobial Inactivation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoNOSM UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrreversible electroporationProstate cancerProstateAblative caseNeurovascular bundleProstatectomyAblationErectile function

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) requires approaches that eliminate malignant tissue while preserving essential urinary and sexual functions. Irreversible electroporation (IRE) represents a targeted ablative strategy that disrupts cellular membrane integrity through precise electrical pulses, demonstrating the capacity to ablate cancerous foci while sparing adjacent neurovascular bundles and sphincter mechanisms. This structured review examines the mechanistic foundations of IRE technology, evaluates current clinical evidence regarding safety and efficacy, and explores promising applications that may redefine precision urologic care. Existing clinical studies demonstrate encouraging oncological control rates with superior preservation of continence and erectile function compared to whole-gland treatments, though patient selection criteria and long-term durability remain areas requiring further investigation. Emerging applications include salvage therapy following radiation failure, integration with advanced multiparametric imaging for precision targeting, and combination strategies with systemic therapies. The regulatory approval status and economic implications of IRE implementation vary significantly across healthcare systems, creating disparities in patient access and adoption of this technology that must be addressed to ensure equitable availability of focal ablation options. As the technology matures, establishing standardized treatment protocols, refining patient selection algorithms, and conducting robust comparative effectiveness studies will be essential to define the optimal role of IRE within prostate cancer management.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designNot applicable
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 venueProstate InternationalSame topicMicrobial Inactivation MethodsFrench-language works237,207