B G Muller1, W van den Bos2, M Brausi3, J J Fütterer4,5, S Ghai6, P A Pinto7, I V Popeneciu8, T M de Reijke2, C Robertson9,10, J J M C H de la Rosette2, S Scionti11, B Turkbey12, H Wijkstra2,13, O Ukimura14, T J Polascik9,10. 1. Department of Urology, AMC University Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. berrend@gmail.com. 2. Department of Urology, AMC University Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Urology, Estense S.Agostino Hospital, Modena, Italy. 4. Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 5. MIRA Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands. 6. Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network - Mount Sinai Hospital - Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 7. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. 8. Department of Urology, University Clinic Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 9. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 10. Department of Urology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 11. Urology, Scionti Prostate Center, Sarasota, FL, USA. 12. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. 13. Department of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 14. Department of Urology, Norris Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Focal therapy can offer the middle ground for treatment between active surveillance and radical therapy in patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Factors that prohibit focal therapy from being standard of care are numerous. Several consensus projects have been conducted to position the utilization of imaging and trial design in focal therapy. However, the literature is still scarce on patient follow-up after focal therapy. For these reasons, an international multidisciplinary consensus project was established in order to reach consensus about a uniform follow-up protocol after focal therapy. OBJECTIVE: To standardize patient follow-up after focal therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature study was performed, and a questionnaire was constructed. The questionnaire was sent out to 76 participants (70 % urologists, 28 % radiologists and 2 % biomedical engineers) in three consecutive rounds according to the Delphi method. In each round, the panelists were presented with the results of the previous round. Participants each had the opportunity to adapt, delete or add questions. The topics discussed pertaining to follow-up after focal therapy were as follows: (1) general,(2) biopsies, (3) PSA, (4) digital rectal examination (DRE), (5) imaging, (6) quality of life (QoL) and (7) registration and pooling of data. The project was concluded with a face-to-face meeting in which final conclusions were formulated. RESULTS: The follow-up after focal therapy should be a minimum of 5 years. The following modalities should be included in assessing post-treatment outcomes: multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), biopsies, assessment of erectile function, QoL, urinary symptoms and incontinence. A systematic 12-core TRUS biopsy combined with 4-6 targeted biopsy cores of the treated area and any suspicious lesion(s) should be performed after 1 year, and thereafter only when there is suspicion on imaging. The ideal way to perform targeted biopsies is to use TRUS-MRI fusion technology. PSA should be performed for research purposes, in the first year, every 3 months, and after the first year, every 6 months. mpMRI is the optimal imaging modality for follow-up after focal therapy. On a 1.5T scanner, an endorectal coil is strongly advised by the panel, whereas on a 3T machine, it is optional, however, it will improve image quality. The following sequences should be included: T2WI, DWI including high b values of >1,000 and ADC maps of DWI, DCE and T1WI. Imaging should be performed at 6 months and at 1 year following treatment; after the first year post-treatment, it should be performed every year until 5 years following treatment. All data should ideally be pooled in a common global database. CONCLUSION: Focal therapy is a relatively new form of treatment for prostate cancer. In order to include focal therapy as a standard of care treatment, consistent follow-up is necessary. By implementing the results of this consensus study, focal therapy users will be able to provide important and standardized outcome data.
INTRODUCTION: Focal therapy can offer the middle ground for treatment between active surveillance and radical therapy in patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Factors that prohibit focal therapy from being standard of care are numerous. Several consensus projects have been conducted to position the utilization of imaging and trial design in focal therapy. However, the literature is still scarce on patient follow-up after focal therapy. For these reasons, an international multidisciplinary consensus project was established in order to reach consensus about a uniform follow-up protocol after focal therapy. OBJECTIVE: To standardize patient follow-up after focal therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature study was performed, and a questionnaire was constructed. The questionnaire was sent out to 76 participants (70 % urologists, 28 % radiologists and 2 % biomedical engineers) in three consecutive rounds according to the Delphi method. In each round, the panelists were presented with the results of the previous round. Participants each had the opportunity to adapt, delete or add questions. The topics discussed pertaining to follow-up after focal therapy were as follows: (1) general,(2) biopsies, (3) PSA, (4) digital rectal examination (DRE), (5) imaging, (6) quality of life (QoL) and (7) registration and pooling of data. The project was concluded with a face-to-face meeting in which final conclusions were formulated. RESULTS: The follow-up after focal therapy should be a minimum of 5 years. The following modalities should be included in assessing post-treatment outcomes: multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), biopsies, assessment of erectile function, QoL, urinary symptoms and incontinence. A systematic 12-core TRUS biopsy combined with 4-6 targeted biopsy cores of the treated area and any suspicious lesion(s) should be performed after 1 year, and thereafter only when there is suspicion on imaging. The ideal way to perform targeted biopsies is to use TRUS-MRI fusion technology. PSA should be performed for research purposes, in the first year, every 3 months, and after the first year, every 6 months. mpMRI is the optimal imaging modality for follow-up after focal therapy. On a 1.5T scanner, an endorectal coil is strongly advised by the panel, whereas on a 3T machine, it is optional, however, it will improve image quality. The following sequences should be included: T2WI, DWI including high b values of >1,000 and ADC maps of DWI, DCE and T1WI. Imaging should be performed at 6 months and at 1 year following treatment; after the first year post-treatment, it should be performed every year until 5 years following treatment. All data should ideally be pooled in a common global database. CONCLUSION: Focal therapy is a relatively new form of treatment for prostate cancer. In order to include focal therapy as a standard of care treatment, consistent follow-up is necessary. By implementing the results of this consensus study, focal therapy users will be able to provide important and standardized outcome data.
Entities:
Keywords:
Consensus; Focal therapy; Follow-up; Prostate cancer
Authors: Hashim U Ahmed; Oguz Akin; Jonathan A Coleman; Sarah Crane; Mark Emberton; Larry Goldenberg; Hedvig Hricak; Mike W Kattan; John Kurhanewicz; Caroline M Moore; Chris Parker; Thomas J Polascik; Peter Scardino; Nicholas van As; Arnauld Villers Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Ernesto R Cordeiro; Xavier Cathelineau; Stefan Thüroff; Michael Marberger; Sebastien Crouzet; Jean J M C H de la Rosette Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-06-06 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Willemien van den Bos; Berrend G Muller; Hashim Ahmed; Chris H Bangma; Eric Barret; Sebastien Crouzet; Scott E Eggener; Inderbir S Gill; Steven Joniau; Gyoergy Kovacs; Sascha Pahernik; Jean J de la Rosette; Olivier Rouvière; Georg Salomon; John F Ward; Peter T Scardino Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-01-13 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ely R Felker; Steven S Raman; David S K Lu; Mitch Tuttle; Daniel J Margolis; Fuad F ElKhoury; James Sayre; Leonard S Marks Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jean J M C H de la Rosette; Rafael Sanchez Salas; Art Rastinehad; Thomas J Polascik Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-03-02 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Andreas M Hötker; Andreas Meier; Yousef Mazaheri; Junting Zheng; Marinela Capanu; Joshua Chaim; Ramon Sosa; Jonathan Coleman; Hedvig Hricak; Oguz Akin Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2019-01
Authors: Francesca V Mertan; Matthew D Greer; Sam Borofsky; Ismail M Kabakus; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Top Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-06