Literature DB >> 27955940

Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion focal cryotherapy of the prostate: A prospective development study.

Massimo Valerio1, Taimur Tariq Shah2, Paras Shah3, Neil Mccartan2, Mark Emberton4, Manit Arya2, Hashim Uddin Ahmed2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The use of software-based magnetic resonance-transrectal ultrasound fusion to deliver focal therapy may increase the precision of treatment. This is a prospective development study assessing the feasibility of Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound (MRI-TRUS) fusion focal cryotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Consecutive patients undergoing focal cryotherapy were included in an academic registry (December 2013-June 2014). MRI-TRUS fusion focal cryotherapy was offered to men with visible clinically significant prostate cancer (Galil SeedNet system). Eligibility was determined by multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), and transperineal template mapping or targeted biopsies. A rigid fusion platform (Biojet) was used with the operator ensuring the ice ball covered at least the lesion. Adverse events were scored using the NCICTC V4. Genitourinary toxicity was assessed using patient-reported outcome measures (IPSS, IIEF-15, and UCLA-EPIC). Early contrast-enhanced MRI and mpMRI at 6 to 12 months were used to assess extent of lesion ablation.
RESULTS: Of 23 patients scheduled, 5 did not have image fusion owing to surgeon preference. Overall, 18 patients undergoing image-fusion cryotherapy had median age of 68 (interquartile range [IQR]: 65-73) years and median preoperative prostate-specific antigen = 9.54 (5.65-16)ng/ml. In all, 13 (72.2%) and 5 (27.8%) patients had intermediate and high-risk cancer, respectively. In total, 10 adverse events were reported with one of these as serious (grade 3) because of admission for hematuria requiring wash out only. There was no difference in the IIEF-15 between baseline and study end (P = 0.24). The IPSS remained stable (P = 0.12), whereas the UCLA-EPIC tended to improve (P = 0.065). The prostate-specific antigen level significantly decreased at 1.8 (1.04-2.93) ng/ml (P<0.001). Both early and late mpMRI showed no residual disease in the treated area. In 2 men, radiological progression of known contralateral disease was observed; both underwent focal high intensity focused ultrasound.
CONCLUSION: MRI-TRUS fusion focal cryotherapy is feasible in most patients and seems to accurately guide ablation demonstrated by posttreatment imaging. Additional studies are needed to determine efficacy using postcryotherapy biopsy.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cryotherapy; Focal therapy; Image fusion; Prostate neoplasms

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27955940     DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.11.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Oncol        ISSN: 1078-1439            Impact factor:   3.498


  14 in total

Review 1.  The role of MRI for detection and staging of radio- and focal therapy-recurrent prostate cancer.

Authors:  Henk van der Poel; Nikos Grivas; Pim van Leeuwen; Stijn Heijmink; Ivo Schoots
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-02-20       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Multimodal Imaging in Focal Therapy Planning and Assessment in Primary Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Hossein Jadvar
Journal:  Clin Transl Imaging       Date:  2017-04-10

Review 3.  Interventional therapy in malignant conditions of the prostate.

Authors:  Attila Kovács; Michael Pinkawa
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 0.635

4.  Making a case "for" focal therapy of the prostate in intermediate risk prostate cancer: current perspective and ongoing trials.

Authors:  Alex Z Wang; Amir H Lebastchi; Luke P O'Connor; Michael Ahdoot; Sherif Mehralivand; Nitin Yerram; Samir S Taneja; Arvin K George; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; John F Ward; Pilar Laguna; Jean de la Rosette; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-01-02       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Irreversible electroporation for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: a summary of imaging findings and treatment feedback.

Authors:  Matthijs J Scheltema; Arnoud W Postema; Daniel M de Bruin; Mara Buijs; Marc R Engelbrecht; M Pilar Laguna; Hessel Wijkstra; Theo M de Reijke; Jean J M C H de la Rosette
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2017 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.630

Review 6.  Contemporary treatments in prostate cancer focal therapy.

Authors:  Michael Ahdoot; Amir H Lebastchi; Baris Turkbey; Bradford Wood; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  Curr Opin Oncol       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 3.645

Review 7.  "Super-active surveillance": MRI ultrasound fusion biopsy and ablation for less invasive management of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Jonathan B Bloom; Samuel A Gold; Graham R Hale; Kareem N Rayn; Vikram K Sabarwal; Ivane Bakhutashvili; Vladimir Valera; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto; Bradford J Wood
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2018-04

Review 8.  MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: the next step forward!

Authors:  Emanuel Darius Cata; Iulia Andras; Teodora Telecan; Attila Tamas-Szora; Radu-Tudor Coman; Dan-Vasile Stanca; Ioan Coman; Nicolae Crisan
Journal:  Med Pharm Rep       Date:  2021-04-29

9.  Single-Center Experience of Focal Thermo-Ablative Therapy After Pelvic Radiotherapy for In-Field Prostate Cancer Oligo-Recurrence.

Authors:  Nicolas Giraud; Xavier Buy; Nam-Son Vuong; Richard Gaston; Anne-Laure Cazeau; Vittorio Catena; Jean Palussiere; Guilhem Roubaud; Paul Sargos
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-07-26       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 10.  Percutaneous MR-guided prostate cancer cryoablation technical updates and literature review.

Authors:  Pierre de Marini; Roberto Luigi Cazzato; Julien Garnon; Behnam Shaygi; Guillaume Koch; Pierre Auloge; Thibault Tricard; Hervé Lang; Afshin Gangi
Journal:  BJR Open       Date:  2019-06-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.