| Literature DB >> 29211405 |
Shawn Dason1, Nathan C Wong1, Christopher B Allard1, Jen Hoogenes1, William Orovan1, Bobby Shayegan1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Some men with localized radio-recurrent prostate cancer may benefit from salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). Herein, we describe oncologic outcomes and predictors of disease response after salvage whole gland HIFU from our prospective cohort.Entities:
Keywords: Erectile Dysfunction; High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation; Prostatic Neoplasms
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29211405 PMCID: PMC6050568 DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2017.0025
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Braz J Urol ISSN: 1677-5538 Impact factor: 1.541
Baseline characteristics of patients.
| Variable | Value |
|---|---|
| Number of included patients (n) | 24 |
| Mean age (years) | 68 |
| Prior EBRT (n) | 21 (88%) |
| Prior brachytherapy (n) | 3 (12%) |
| Prior ADT (with radiotherapy) (n) | 6 (25%) |
| Restaging MRI (n) | 9 (38%) |
| Median PSA (ng/mL) [range] | 4.02 [0.90 – 28.90] ng/mL |
| Gleason grade (n having 6, 7, 8-10) | 3, 11, 10 |
| Clinical T stage (n having T1, T2, T3) | 10, 8, 6 |
Figure 1(A) Maximum PSA decline and (B) Timing of maximum PSA decline (post-HIFU nadir) and timing of PSA failure for individual patients treated with salvage HIFU.
Figure 2Recurrence-free survival (RFS) after salvage HIFU.
Figure 3Subgroup analysis of recurrence-free survival (RFS) after salvage HIFU. (A) PSA nadir serves as an early predictor of RFS (P<0.001). (B) Low grade and (C) impalpable disease are suggestive of improved RFS but not statistically significant.
Review of literature for salvage HIFU (whole gland and focal) for radio-recurrent prostate cancer.
| Study, Year | Device | No. patients (n) | Age (years) | Pre-HIFU PSA (months) | Median follow-up (months) | Primary therapy | Prior ADT (%) | Definition of biochemical failure | RFS | Incontinence (%) | Bladder obstruction (%) | Rectourethral fistula (%) | Osteitis Pubis (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whole Gland HIFU | |||||||||||||
| Gelet, 2004 | Ablatherm™ | 71 | 67 | 5.72 | 14.8 | EBRT | 30 | ASTRO | 38% (30 months) | 35.2 (G3 = 7) | 16.9 | 5.6 | NR |
| Zacgarakis, 2008 | Sonablate 500™ | 31 | 68 | 5.7 | 7.4 | EBRT | 58 | ASTRO | 71% (7.4 months) | 6.5 | 36 | 6.5 | NR |
| Murat, 2009 | Ablatherm™ | 167 | 68 | 4.5 | 18.1 | EBRT | 56.8 | Phoenix | 53% low risk, 42% intermediate risk, 25% high risk (3 years) | 49.5 (G3 = 9.5) | 19.8 | 3 | NR |
| Berge, 2010 | Ablatherm™ | 46 | 67.4 | 5.5 | 9 | EBRT | 15.2 | Phoenix | 60.9% (9 months) | 32.6 | 4.4 | 2.2 | NR |
| EBRT (63.6%), | |||||||||||||
| Uchida, 2010 | Sonablate 500™ | 22 | 65 | 4 | 24 | BT (22.7), | 27.3 | Phoenix | 52% (5 years) | 18.2 | 18.2 | 4.5 | NR |
| PT (13.6%) | |||||||||||||
| Ahmed, 2012 | Sonablate 500™ | 84 | 68 | 4.3 | 19.8 | EBRT | 36 | Phoenix | 59% (1 year); 43% (2 year) | 38 | 20 | 4.8 | 1.2 |
| Crouzet, 2012 | Ablatherm™ | 290 | 68.7 | 6.38 | 48 | EBRT | 50 | Phoenix | 45% low risk, 31% intermediate risk, 21% high risk (5 years) | 46.6 | 16 | 2 | 2.7 |
| Rouviere, 2013 | Ablatherm™ | 46 | NR | 5.7 | NR | EBRT | 32.6 | Phoenix | 42% (2 year); 31% (4 year) | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Song, 2014 | Ablatherm™ | 13 | 68 | 4.63 | 44.5 | ERBT | 61.5 | Stuttgart | 53.8% (44.5 months) | 30.8 | 38.5 | 0 | NR |
| Yutkin, 2014 | Sonablate 500™ | 19 | 66 | 3.25 | 59.3 | BT | 27 | Stuttgart | 66.7% (4.3 years) | 31.6 | 21.1 | 15.8 | 0 |
| Dason, 2016 | Ablatherm™ | 24 | 68 | 4.02 | 31 | ERBT (88%), | NR | Phoenix | 66.3% (2 year); | NR | 4.2 | 0 | 0 |
| BT (12%) | 51.6% (5 year) | ||||||||||||
| Focal HIFU | |||||||||||||
| Ahmed, 2012 | Sonablate 500™ | 39 | 70.5 | 3.3 | 17 | EBRT | 74.4 | Phoenix | 69% (1 year); 49% (2 year) | 12.8 | 8 | 2.6 | 0 |
| Baco, 2014 | Ablatherm™ | 48 | 68.8 | NR | 16.3 | EBRT (96%), BT (4%) | 23 | Phoenix | 83% (1 year); 52% (2 year) | 25 | NR | 0 | 2 |