본문으로 건너뛰기
← 뒤로

Evaluating less-invasive strategies for localized prostate cancer: a comparative meta-analysis on high-intensity focused ultrasound versus radical prostatectomy.

메타분석 1/5 보강
International urology and nephrology 2026 Vol.58(2) p. 391-406
Retraction 확인
출처

Lepine HL, Vicentini FC, Filho CM, Cavalcante G, Llata FM, Júnior JB, Reis LO, Mota JM, Nahas WC, Ribeiro-Filho LA, Suartz CV

📝 환자 설명용 한 줄

[PURPOSE] Prostate cancer is frequently managed with radical prostatectomy (RP), which can offer excellent oncological control but with significant genitourinary morbidity.

🔬 핵심 임상 통계 (초록에서 자동 추출 — 원문 검증 권장)
  • p-value p = 0.02
  • OR 0.36
  • 연구 설계 systematic review

이 논문을 인용하기

BibTeX ↓ RIS ↓
APA Lepine HL, Vicentini FC, et al. (2026). Evaluating less-invasive strategies for localized prostate cancer: a comparative meta-analysis on high-intensity focused ultrasound versus radical prostatectomy.. International urology and nephrology, 58(2), 391-406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-025-04695-9
MLA Lepine HL, et al.. "Evaluating less-invasive strategies for localized prostate cancer: a comparative meta-analysis on high-intensity focused ultrasound versus radical prostatectomy.." International urology and nephrology, vol. 58, no. 2, 2026, pp. 391-406.
PMID 40742653

Abstract

[PURPOSE] Prostate cancer is frequently managed with radical prostatectomy (RP), which can offer excellent oncological control but with significant genitourinary morbidity. High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) has emerged as a less-invasive alternative. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the oncological, functional, and safety outcomes of HIFU versus RP in men with localized prostate cancer.

[METHODS] Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane through December 2024 for comparative studies of HIFU and RP. Fourteen studies (including two randomized trials) met inclusion criteria. The primary endpoint was salvage therapy-free survival (STFS). Secondary outcomes included biochemical recurrence, metastasis-free survival, functional outcomes, and complications. Random-effect models were applied, and meta-regression explored sources of heterogeneity.

[RESULTS] Overall, HIFU was associated with lower STFS (odds ratio [OR]: 0.65, p = 0.02) although biochemical recurrence and metastasis-free survival did not differ significantly between treatments. Focal HIFU showed fewer major complications (OR: 0.36) and significantly better erectile function preservation (OR: 6.03), but minor complications were slightly more frequent. High heterogeneity was partly explained by study design and follow-up duration. Limitations include substantial heterogeneity, variable definitions of outcomes, and relatively short follow-ups in some studies.

[CONCLUSION] For selected patients, biochemical recurrence and metastasis-free survival did not differ significantly between treatments although HIFU was associated with lower STFS. Particularly as focal therapy, it shows the potential to achieve oncologic outcomes comparable to radical prostatectomy while enhancing erectile function preservation, urinary continence, and reducing major complications. Further long-term prospective studies are warranted to solidify these findings.

MeSH Terms

Humans; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostatectomy; High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation; Ultrasound, High-Intensity Focused, Transrectal; Treatment Outcome