OBJECTIVES: To evaluate longitudinal changes in urinary function and quality of life, and the oncological outcomes of patients treated with urethra-sparing high-intensity focused ultrasound for localized prostate cancer. METHODS: Patients with negative findings in the urethra and the anterior urethral zone using transrectal ultrasound-guided targeted biopsies, and magnetic resonance imaging, received urethra-sparing or whole-gland high-intensity focused ultrasound as the primary therapy for localized prostate cancer without transurethral resection of the prostate. Longitudinal changes in urinary function and quality of life, and the oncological outcomes of the patients were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: The median follow-up times for urethra-sparing and whole-gland high-intensity focused ultrasound were 36 and 30 months, respectively. Comparing the patients treated with urethra-sparing high-intensity focused ultrasound (n = 45) with those treated with whole-gland high-intensity focused ultrasound (n = 65), there were significant differences in the International Prostate Symptom Score (P = 0.014) at 3 months, International Prostate Symptom Score quality of life (P = 0.033) at 3 months, maximum urinary flow rate (mL/s; at 3 months, P = 0.010; at 6 months, P = 0.038) and residual urine volume (mL; at 3 months, P < 0.0001; at 6 months, P = 0.016; at 12 months, P = 0.028). For quality of life, there were significant differences in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (at 3 months, P = 0.022) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Prostate (at 3 months, P = 0.028; at 6 months, P = 0.034). There were no significant differences in oncological outcomes regarding negative biopsy rates on follow up (91% vs 92%; P = 0.8) or biochemical disease-free survival rates (86.7% vs 89.2%; P = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Urethra-sparing high-intensity focused ultrasound might prevent prolonged bladder outlet obstruction, and could be a treatment option for localized prostate cancer.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate longitudinal changes in urinary function and quality of life, and the oncological outcomes of patients treated with urethra-sparing high-intensity focused ultrasound for localized prostate cancer. METHODS:Patients with negative findings in the urethra and the anterior urethral zone using transrectal ultrasound-guided targeted biopsies, and magnetic resonance imaging, received urethra-sparing or whole-gland high-intensity focused ultrasound as the primary therapy for localized prostate cancer without transurethral resection of the prostate. Longitudinal changes in urinary function and quality of life, and the oncological outcomes of the patients were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: The median follow-up times for urethra-sparing and whole-gland high-intensity focused ultrasound were 36 and 30 months, respectively. Comparing the patients treated with urethra-sparing high-intensity focused ultrasound (n = 45) with those treated with whole-gland high-intensity focused ultrasound (n = 65), there were significant differences in the International Prostate Symptom Score (P = 0.014) at 3 months, International Prostate Symptom Score quality of life (P = 0.033) at 3 months, maximum urinary flow rate (mL/s; at 3 months, P = 0.010; at 6 months, P = 0.038) and residual urine volume (mL; at 3 months, P < 0.0001; at 6 months, P = 0.016; at 12 months, P = 0.028). For quality of life, there were significant differences in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (at 3 months, P = 0.022) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Prostate (at 3 months, P = 0.028; at 6 months, P = 0.034). There were no significant differences in oncological outcomes regarding negative biopsy rates on follow up (91% vs 92%; P = 0.8) or biochemical disease-free survival rates (86.7% vs 89.2%; P = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Urethra-sparing high-intensity focused ultrasound might prevent prolonged bladder outlet obstruction, and could be a treatment option for localized prostate cancer.
Authors: Sena Tuncer; Sherif Mehralivand; Stephanie A Harmon; Thomas Sanford; G Thomas Brown; Lindsay S Rowe; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2020-10
Authors: Angelika Borkowetz; Andreas Blana; Dirk Böhmer; Hannes Cash; Udo Ehrmann; Tobias Franiel; Thomas-Oliver Henkel; Stefan Höcht; Glen Kristiansen; Stefan Machtens; Peter Niehoff; Tobias Penzkofer; Michael Pinkawa; Jan Philipp Radtke; Wilfried Roth; Ullrich Witzsch; Roman Ganzer; Heinz Peter Schlemmer; Marc-Oliver Grimm; Oliver W Hakenberg; Martin Schostak Journal: Urol Int Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 1.934
Authors: Soleen Ghafoor; Daniel Stocker; Olivio F Donati; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Anton S Becker; Borna K Barth; Daniel Eberli Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2020-11
Authors: Luke P O'Connor; Shayann Ramedani; Michael Daneshvar; Arvin K George; Andre Luis Abreu; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Amir H Lebastchi Journal: Asian J Urol Date: 2021-05-03
Authors: Miao Wang; Lei Zhang; Huimin Hou; Tao Gu; Cheng Shen; Xin Ding; Jintao Zhang; Xuan Wang; Jianlong Wang; Jianye Wang; Ming Liu Journal: Transl Cancer Res Date: 2021-12 Impact factor: 1.241