D Baumunk1, M Schostak. 1. Klinik für Urologie und Kinderurologie, Universitätsklinikum Magdeburg A.ö.R., Medizinische Fakultät der Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg, Leipziger Straße 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Deutschland, daniel.baumunk@med.ovgu.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is an alternative technique in the treatment of prostate cancer (PC). Despite proven oncologic efficacy, HIFU is still not establish as a standard therapy for PC in Germany due to insufficient clinical studies. OBJECTIVES: HIFU can be performed as primary whole gland treatment, primary focal treatment, or salvage treatment in patients with local recurrence after external radiation therapy (RT) or seeds (BT). This paper provides an overview of the current significance of HIFU therapy in Germany. RESULTS: Primary whole gland HIFU treatment showed approximately similar oncologic efficacy and side effects when compared to radical prostatectomy (RP) and RT or BT but results were not better than standard therapies. Between the priorities of the active standard therapies, on the one hand, and active surveillance, on the other, primary focal HIFU treatment may offer a new therapeutic approach for patients with low- and early intermediate-risk diseases. Diagnostic uncertainties and the lack of validated oncological outcome data are currently strong limitations to the results of primary focal treatment. Salvage treatment may offer intermediate-term disease-free survival for patients with local recurrence after RT or BT, although it may be accompanied by increased side effects. CONCLUSION: Currently, there is only little need for an alternative whole gland treatment besides RP and RT/BT. The number of patients with low- and early intermediate-risk diseases continues to grow. Some of these patients may benefit from primary focal HIFU treatment. Prospective multicentric clinical trials are needed to validate the oncologic efficacy of primary focal HIFU treatment.
BACKGROUND: High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is an alternative technique in the treatment of prostate cancer (PC). Despite proven oncologic efficacy, HIFU is still not establish as a standard therapy for PC in Germany due to insufficient clinical studies. OBJECTIVES: HIFU can be performed as primary whole gland treatment, primary focal treatment, or salvage treatment in patients with local recurrence after external radiation therapy (RT) or seeds (BT). This paper provides an overview of the current significance of HIFU therapy in Germany. RESULTS: Primary whole gland HIFU treatment showed approximately similar oncologic efficacy and side effects when compared to radical prostatectomy (RP) and RT or BT but results were not better than standard therapies. Between the priorities of the active standard therapies, on the one hand, and active surveillance, on the other, primary focal HIFU treatment may offer a new therapeutic approach for patients with low- and early intermediate-risk diseases. Diagnostic uncertainties and the lack of validated oncological outcome data are currently strong limitations to the results of primary focal treatment. Salvage treatment may offer intermediate-term disease-free survival for patients with local recurrence after RT or BT, although it may be accompanied by increased side effects. CONCLUSION: Currently, there is only little need for an alternative whole gland treatment besides RP and RT/BT. The number of patients with low- and early intermediate-risk diseases continues to grow. Some of these patients may benefit from primary focal HIFU treatment. Prospective multicentric clinical trials are needed to validate the oncologic efficacy of primary focal HIFU treatment.
Authors: D Baumunk; H Cash; J Ebbing; M Porsch; A Janitzky; J J Wendler; U-B Liehr; R Ganzer; A Blana; M Schostak Journal: Aktuelle Urol Date: 2012-08-08 Impact factor: 0.658
Authors: Fritz H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Teuvo L J Tammela; Stefano Ciatto; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Hans Lilja; Marco Zappa; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Alvaro Páez; Liisa Määttänen; Chris H Bangma; Gunnar Aus; Sigrid Carlsson; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Theodorus van der Kwast; Paula M Kujala; Bert G Blijenberg; Ulf-Hakan Stenman; Andreas Huber; Kimmo Taari; Matti Hakama; Sue M Moss; Harry J de Koning; Anssi Auvinen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Simon R J Bott; Hashim U Ahmed; Richard G Hindley; Ahmad Abdul-Rahman; Alex Freeman; Mark Emberton Journal: BJU Int Date: 2010-12 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: Jennifer R Rider; Fredrik Sandin; Ove Andrén; Peter Wiklund; Jonas Hugosson; Pär Stattin Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-08-10 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: James E Thompson; Daniel Moses; Ron Shnier; Phillip Brenner; Warick Delprado; Lee Ponsky; Marley Pulbrook; Maret Böhm; Anne-Maree Haynes; Andrew Hayen; Phillip D Stricker Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-02-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Sofie Isebaert; Laura Van den Bergh; Karin Haustermans; Steven Joniau; Evelyne Lerut; Liesbeth De Wever; Frederik De Keyzer; Tom Budiharto; Pieter Slagmolen; Hendrik Van Poppel; Raymond Oyen Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-11-21 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: J J Wendler; R Ganzer; B Hadaschik; A Blana; T Henkel; K U Köhrmann; S Machtens; A Roosen; G Salomon; L Sentker; U Witzsch; H P Schlemmer; D Baumunk; J Köllermann; M Schostak; U B Liehr Journal: Urologe A Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 0.639