Huibo Lian1, Junlong Zhuang1, Rong Yang1, Feng Qu1, Wei Wang1, Tingsheng Lin1, Hongqian Guo2. 1. Department of Urology, Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital of Nanjing University, 321 Zhongshan Road, Nanjing, 210008, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Urology, Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital of Nanjing University, 321 Zhongshan Road, Nanjing, 210008, People's Republic of China. dr.guohongqian@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report (1) intermediate-term oncologic and functional outcomes of primary focal cryoablation (FC) in selected patients with clinically unilateral, low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer, and investigate (2) the impact of patient selection criteria at predicting outcomes after FC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one patients with unilateral prostate cancer were treated with FC. Patients were stratified using the 2007 Task Force Focal Prostate Cancer Patient selection criteria (Task Force criteria). Posttherapy follow-up included questionnaires, PSA measurement, and TRUS-guided biopsies. RESULTS: Complete follow-up was available in 40 patients (median follow-up 63 months; range 12-92 months). Compared to precryotherapy PSA level (mean 7.1 ng/ml), postcryotherapy PSA level (mean 1.8 ng/ml) dropped by 75 % at 3 months (P < 0.0001) and this decline persisted throughout the follow-up period, with no significant difference seen across patient selection criteria (P = 0.859). The treatment failure rate was 10 % (4/40) with no significant difference seen across patient selection criteria (P = 0.832). Of 32 patients undergoing postcryotherapy biopsy, 7 (22 %) had positive biopsies (2 ipsilateral lobes, 5 contralateral lobes). Patients of Task Force criteria group were less likely to have positive biopsy in contralateral lobe than focal control group (P = 0.032). Complete continence (no pads) and potency sufficient for intercourse were documented in 97.6 and 76.9 % of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The intermediate-term oncologic efficacy of primary FC in selected patients with clinically unilateral, low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer appears favorable, and the side-effect profile is low. The 2007 Task Force criteria appear to reduce the positive biopsy rate in contralateral lobe after FC.
OBJECTIVE: To report (1) intermediate-term oncologic and functional outcomes of primary focal cryoablation (FC) in selected patients with clinically unilateral, low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer, and investigate (2) the impact of patient selection criteria at predicting outcomes after FC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one patients with unilateral prostate cancer were treated with FC. Patients were stratified using the 2007 Task Force Focal Prostate CancerPatient selection criteria (Task Force criteria). Posttherapy follow-up included questionnaires, PSA measurement, and TRUS-guided biopsies. RESULTS: Complete follow-up was available in 40 patients (median follow-up 63 months; range 12-92 months). Compared to precryotherapy PSA level (mean 7.1 ng/ml), postcryotherapy PSA level (mean 1.8 ng/ml) dropped by 75 % at 3 months (P < 0.0001) and this decline persisted throughout the follow-up period, with no significant difference seen across patient selection criteria (P = 0.859). The treatment failure rate was 10 % (4/40) with no significant difference seen across patient selection criteria (P = 0.832). Of 32 patients undergoing postcryotherapy biopsy, 7 (22 %) had positive biopsies (2 ipsilateral lobes, 5 contralateral lobes). Patients of Task Force criteria group were less likely to have positive biopsy in contralateral lobe than focal control group (P = 0.032). Complete continence (no pads) and potency sufficient for intercourse were documented in 97.6 and 76.9 % of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The intermediate-term oncologic efficacy of primary FC in selected patients with clinically unilateral, low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer appears favorable, and the side-effect profile is low. The 2007 Task Force criteria appear to reduce the positive biopsy rate in contralateral lobe after FC.
Authors: Duke Bahn; Andre Luis de Castro Abreu; Inderbir S Gill; Andrew J Hung; Paul Silverman; Mitchell E Gross; Gary Lieskovsky; Osamu Ukimura Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-03-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Arnold L Potosky; Reina Haque; Andrea E Cassidy-Bushrow; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Miao Jiang; Huei-Ting Tsai; George Luta; Nancy L Keating; Matthew R Smith; Stephen K Van Den Eeden Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-03-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A V D'Amico; D Schultz; M Loffredo; R Dugal; M Hurwitz; I Kaplan; C J Beard; A A Renshaw; P W Kantoff Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-09-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Julia H Hayes; Daniel A Ollendorf; Steven D Pearson; Michael J Barry; Philip W Kantoff; Susan T Stewart; Vibha Bhatnagar; Christopher J Sweeney; James E Stahl; Pamela M McMahon Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-12-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Scott E Eggener; Peter T Scardino; Peter R Carroll; Michael J Zelefsky; Oliver Sartor; Hedvig Hricak; Thomas M Wheeler; Samson W Fine; John Trachtenberg; Mark A Rubin; Mak Ohori; Kentaro Kuroiwa; Michel Rossignol; Lucien Abenhaim Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-10-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Matthew R Cooperberg; Deborah P Lubeck; Maxwell V Meng; Shilpa S Mehta; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544
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: John M Baust; Anthony Robilotto; Kristi K Snyder; Kimberly Santucci; Jennie Stewart; Robert Van Buskirk; John G Baust Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-05-17