R Ganzer1. 1. Klinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig AöR, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Deutschland. roman.ganzer@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) has been used since the beginning of the 1990s as an alternative treatment for prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: Overview of the current status and critical review of the different indications for HIFU in the treatment of prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Review of the current literature on the indications, side effects, oncologic results and current guideline recommendations. RESULTS: The principle of HIFU is based on high energy sound waves, which lead to coagulation necrosis at the focal point. It can be applied for different indications: complete ablation of prostatic tissue is attempted in whole gland HIFU in the primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. There are several case series in the current literature with a maximum median follow-up of 8.1 years. The main side effect is the formation of bladder neck sclerosis. A further indication is for salvage HIFU in patients with localized recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy. This is a high-risk procedure due to increased risk of incontinence and formation of rectourethral fistula. Focal therapy is an innovative field aiming at partial prostate gland ablation with HIFU thereby reducing side effects. Technical improvements in HIFU enable treatment planning with fusion of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Due to the experimental character, this should only be carried out within clinical trials. DISCUSSION: Due to a lack of prospective randomized trials and limited long-term results, whole gland HIFU is considered differently in the guidelines of European countries. Focal therapy is still experimental and should only be carried out within clinical trials.
BACKGROUND: High intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) has been used since the beginning of the 1990s as an alternative treatment for prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: Overview of the current status and critical review of the different indications for HIFU in the treatment of prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Review of the current literature on the indications, side effects, oncologic results and current guideline recommendations. RESULTS: The principle of HIFU is based on high energy sound waves, which lead to coagulation necrosis at the focal point. It can be applied for different indications: complete ablation of prostatic tissue is attempted in whole gland HIFU in the primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. There are several case series in the current literature with a maximum median follow-up of 8.1 years. The main side effect is the formation of bladder neck sclerosis. A further indication is for salvage HIFU in patients with localized recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy. This is a high-risk procedure due to increased risk of incontinence and formation of rectourethral fistula. Focal therapy is an innovative field aiming at partial prostate gland ablation with HIFU thereby reducing side effects. Technical improvements in HIFU enable treatment planning with fusion of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Due to the experimental character, this should only be carried out within clinical trials. DISCUSSION: Due to a lack of prospective randomized trials and limited long-term results, whole gland HIFU is considered differently in the guidelines of European countries. Focal therapy is still experimental and should only be carried out within clinical trials.
Authors: Roman Ganzer; Cary N Robertson; John F Ward; Stephen C W Brown; Giario N Conti; Francois J Murat; Gilles Pasticier; Xavier Rebillard; Stefan Thuroff; Wolf F Wieland; Andreas Blana Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-02-18 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Andreas Blana; Stephen C W Brown; Christian Chaussy; Giario N Conti; James A Eastham; Roman Ganzer; Francois J Murat; Gilles Pasticier; Xavier Rebillard; John C Rewcastle; Cary N Robertson; Stefan Thuroff; John F Ward Journal: BJU Int Date: 2009-04-17 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Hendrik Isbarn; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Susanne Vogel; Claudio Jeldres; Giovanni Lughezzani; Alberto Briganti; Francesco Montorsi; Paul Perrotte; Sascha A Ahyai; Lars Budäus; Christian Eichelberg; Roman Heuer; Jens Köllermann; Guido Sauter; Thorsten Schlomm; Thomas Steuber; Alexander Haese; Mario Zacharias; Margit Fisch; Hans Heinzer; Hartwig Huland; Felix K H Chun; Markus Graefen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-10-26 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Roman Ganzer; Sebastian Rogenhofer; Bernhard Walter; Jens-Claudio Lunz; Martin Schostak; Wolf F Wieland; Andreas Blana Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-07-17 Impact factor: 20.096
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: Piyush K Agarwal; Natalia Sadetsky; Badrinath R Konety; Martin I Resnick; Peter R Carroll Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Hashim U Ahmed; Richard G Hindley; Louise Dickinson; Alex Freeman; Alex P Kirkham; Mahua Sahu; Rebecca Scott; Clare Allen; Jan Van der Meulen; Mark Emberton Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-04-17 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Ian A Donaldson; Roberto Alonzi; Dean Barratt; Eric Barret; Viktor Berge; Simon Bott; David Bottomley; Scott Eggener; Behfar Ehdaie; Mark Emberton; Richard Hindley; Tom Leslie; Alec Miners; Neil McCartan; Caroline M Moore; Peter Pinto; Thomas J Polascik; Lucy Simmons; Jan van der Meulen; Arnauld Villers; Sarah Willis; Hashim U Ahmed Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-10-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ahmed El-Balat; Rudy Leon DeWilde; Iryna Schmeil; Morva Tahmasbi-Rad; Sandra Bogdanyova; Ali Fathi; Sven Becker Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 3.411