Ron Golan1, Adrien N Bernstein1, Timothy D McClure1, Art Sedrakyan2, Neal A Patel1, Dipen J Parekh3, Leonard S Marks4, Jim C Hu5. 1. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. 2. Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. 3. Department of Urology, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. 4. Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 5. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. Electronic address: jch9011@med.cornell.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Advances in prostate imaging, biopsy and ablative technologies have been accompanied by growing enthusiasm for partial gland ablation, particularly using high-intensity focused ultrasound, to treat prostate cancer. Preserving noncancerous prostate tissue and minimizing damage to the neurovascular bundles and external urethral sphincter may improve functional outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was performed following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using a combination of MeSH® terms, free text search and examination of relevant bibliographies using MEDLINE® and Embase® from the inception of each database through October 10, 2016. We excluded studies describing exclusively whole gland ablation, case reports and series where treatment was followed by immediate resection. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies that enrolled 543 patients were included. Of the studies 11 were performed in the primary setting and 2 in the salvage setting. Median followup ranged from 6 months to 10.6 years. Rates of posttreatment erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence ranged from 0% to 48% and 0% to 50%, respectively, with definitions varying by study. Overall there were 254 reported complications. Marked heterogeneity between studies limited the ability to pool results regarding functional and oncologic outcomes. A total of 76 patients (14%) subsequently received further oncologic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Early evidence suggests that partial gland ablation is a safe treatment option for men with localized disease. Longer term data are needed to evaluate oncologic efficacy and functional outcomes, and will aid in identifying the optimal candidates for therapy. Standardization of outcomes definitions will allow for better comparison between studies and among treatment modalities.
PURPOSE: Advances in prostate imaging, biopsy and ablative technologies have been accompanied by growing enthusiasm for partial gland ablation, particularly using high-intensity focused ultrasound, to treat prostate cancer. Preserving noncancerous prostate tissue and minimizing damage to the neurovascular bundles and external urethral sphincter may improve functional outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was performed following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using a combination of MeSH® terms, free text search and examination of relevant bibliographies using MEDLINE® and Embase® from the inception of each database through October 10, 2016. We excluded studies describing exclusively whole gland ablation, case reports and series where treatment was followed by immediate resection. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies that enrolled 543 patients were included. Of the studies 11 were performed in the primary setting and 2 in the salvage setting. Median followup ranged from 6 months to 10.6 years. Rates of posttreatment erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence ranged from 0% to 48% and 0% to 50%, respectively, with definitions varying by study. Overall there were 254 reported complications. Marked heterogeneity between studies limited the ability to pool results regarding functional and oncologic outcomes. A total of 76 patients (14%) subsequently received further oncologic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Early evidence suggests that partial gland ablation is a safe treatment option for men with localized disease. Longer term data are needed to evaluate oncologic efficacy and functional outcomes, and will aid in identifying the optimal candidates for therapy. Standardization of outcomes definitions will allow for better comparison between studies and among treatment modalities.
Authors: R Ganzer; T Franiel; J Köllermann; T Kuru; D Baumunk; A Blana; B Hadaschik; J von Hardenberg; T Henkel; K-U Köhrmann; U-B Liehr; S Machtens; A Roosen; G Salomon; H-P Schlemmer; L Sentker; J Wendler; U Witzsch; M Schostak Journal: Urologe A Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: H Petra Kok; Erik N K Cressman; Wim Ceelen; Christopher L Brace; Robert Ivkov; Holger Grüll; Gail Ter Haar; Peter Wust; Johannes Crezee Journal: Int J Hyperthermia Date: 2020 Impact factor: 3.914
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: Brecht Devos; Walid Al Hajj Obeid; Colin Andrianne; Romain Diamand; Alexandre Peltier; Wouter Everaerts; Hein Van Poppel; Roland Van Velthoven; Steven Joniau Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-01-21 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Steve R Zhou; Alan M Priester; Rajiv Jayadevan; David C Johnson; Jason J Yang; Jorge Ballon; Shyam Natarajan; Leonard S Marks Journal: BJU Int Date: 2019-11-25 Impact factor: 5.969
Authors: Stephanie Guillaumier; Max Peters; Manit Arya; Naveed Afzal; Susan Charman; Tim Dudderidge; Feargus Hosking-Jervis; Richard G Hindley; Henry Lewi; Neil McCartan; Caroline M Moore; Raj Nigam; Chris Ogden; Raj Persad; Karishma Shah; Jan van der Meulen; Jaspal Virdi; Mathias Winkler; Mark Emberton; Hashim U Ahmed Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-06-28 Impact factor: 20.096