Sangeet Ghai1,2, Nathan Perlis3, Uri Lindner3,4, Eugen Hlasny5, Masoom A Haider5, Antonio Finelli3, Alexandre R Zlotta3, Girish S Kulkarni3, Theodorus H van der Kwast6, Stuart A McCluskey7, Walter Kucharczyk5, John Trachtenberg3. 1. Toronto Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network - Mt Sinai Hospital - Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. Sangeet.ghai@uhn.ca. 2. 1PMB-283, Toronto General Hospital, 585 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 2N2, Canada. Sangeet.ghai@uhn.ca. 3. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Department of Urology, Kaplan Medical Center, Rehovot, Israel. 5. Toronto Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network - Mt Sinai Hospital - Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 6. Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 7. Department of Anaesthesia, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of focal therapy for low-intermediate risk prostate cancer (PCa) with magnetic resonance-guided high frequency focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) METHODS: This IRB-approved phase 1 prospective study enrolled eight patients with prostate specific antigen (PSA) ≤ 10 ng/ml, ≤ cT2a and Gleason score ≤ 7 (4 + 3) disease following informed consent. Under MRI guidance, focused high frequency ultrasound energy was delivered to ablate the target tissue. Treatment-related adverse events were recorded. Oncologic outcomes were evaluated with multiparametric MRI, PSA and TRUS biopsy at 6 months following treatment. RESULTS: Ten target lesions [six Gleason 6 lesions, two Gleason 7 (3 + 4) and two Gleason 7 (4 + 3)] were treated in eight men (prostate volume range, 25-50 cc; mean MRI time, 248 min per patient; mean sonication duration, 65 min). Mean target volume was 2.7 cc and mean post-treatment non-perfused volume was 4.3 cc. Quality of life parameters were similar between baseline and 6 months in 6/8 patients. All treated regions were negative on MRI; 4/8 patients and 6/10 target lesions (60%) were clear of disease on biopsy. One patient with 2-mm Gleason 8 disease in one of five cores from treatment site (4 + 3 disease at baseline) subsequently underwent prostatectomy with negative surgical margins. Three patients with low volume (5-15%) Gleason 6 residual disease were offered active surveillance. Mean PSA decreased from 5.06 at baseline to 3.4 ng/ml at 6 months. CONCLUSION: MRgFUS is a feasible and safe method of noninvasively ablating low-intermediate risk PCa with acceptable short-term oncologic outcomes. KEY POINTS: • Focal therapy selectively ablates locally confined, clinically significant index lesion with a margin while sparing rest of gland and adjacent vital structures. • Magnetic resonance-guided focused high frequency ultrasound surgery (MRgFUS) combines MRI with HIFU. • MRgFUS provides ability to monitor treatments in real time and allows a targeted approach for focal ablation. • MRgFUS is a feasible, safe method of noninvasively ablating low-intermediate risk PCa. • MRgFUS provides acceptable oncologic outcomes at 6 months.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of focal therapy for low-intermediate risk prostate cancer (PCa) with magnetic resonance-guided high frequency focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) METHODS: This IRB-approved phase 1 prospective study enrolled eight patients with prostate specific antigen (PSA) ≤ 10 ng/ml, ≤ cT2a and Gleason score ≤ 7 (4 + 3) disease following informed consent. Under MRI guidance, focused high frequency ultrasound energy was delivered to ablate the target tissue. Treatment-related adverse events were recorded. Oncologic outcomes were evaluated with multiparametric MRI, PSA and TRUS biopsy at 6 months following treatment. RESULTS: Ten target lesions [six Gleason 6 lesions, two Gleason 7 (3 + 4) and two Gleason 7 (4 + 3)] were treated in eight men (prostate volume range, 25-50 cc; mean MRI time, 248 min per patient; mean sonication duration, 65 min). Mean target volume was 2.7 cc and mean post-treatment non-perfused volume was 4.3 cc. Quality of life parameters were similar between baseline and 6 months in 6/8 patients. All treated regions were negative on MRI; 4/8 patients and 6/10 target lesions (60%) were clear of disease on biopsy. One patient with 2-mm Gleason 8 disease in one of five cores from treatment site (4 + 3 disease at baseline) subsequently underwent prostatectomy with negative surgical margins. Three patients with low volume (5-15%) Gleason 6 residual disease were offered active surveillance. Mean PSA decreased from 5.06 at baseline to 3.4 ng/ml at 6 months. CONCLUSION: MRgFUS is a feasible and safe method of noninvasively ablating low-intermediate risk PCa with acceptable short-term oncologic outcomes. KEY POINTS: • Focal therapy selectively ablates locally confined, clinically significant index lesion with a margin while sparing rest of gland and adjacent vital structures. • Magnetic resonance-guided focused high frequency ultrasound surgery (MRgFUS) combines MRI with HIFU. • MRgFUS provides ability to monitor treatments in real time and allows a targeted approach for focal ablation. • MRgFUS is a feasible, safe method of noninvasively ablating low-intermediate risk PCa. • MRgFUS provides acceptable oncologic outcomes at 6 months.
Entities:
Keywords:
High-intensity focused ultrasound ablation; Image-guided surgery; Interventional magnetic resonance imaging; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate cancer
Authors: J B Madalinska; M L Essink-Bot; H J de Koning; W J Kirkels; P J van der Maas; F H Schröder Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Uri Lindner; Sangeet Ghai; Paula Spensieri; Eugen Hlasny; Theodorus H Van Der Kwast; Stuart A McCluskey; Masoom A Haider; Walter Kucharczyk; John Trachtenberg Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: J I Perez-Reggeti; R Sanchez-Salas; A Sivaraman; E Linares Espinos; A E de Gracia-Nieto; E Barret; M Galiano; F Rozet; A Fregeville; R Renard-Penna; N Cathala; A Mombet; D Prapotnich; X Cathelineau Journal: Actas Urol Esp Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 0.994
Authors: Jan P Radtke; Constantin Schwab; Maya B Wolf; Martin T Freitag; Celine D Alt; Claudia Kesch; Ionel V Popeneciu; Clemens Huettenbrink; Claudia Gasch; Tilman Klein; David Bonekamp; Stefan Duensing; Wilfried Roth; Svenja Schueler; Christian Stock; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Matthias Roethke; Markus Hohenfellner; Boris A Hadaschik Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 20.096
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: Hashim U Ahmed; Louise Dickinson; Susan Charman; Shraddha Weir; Neil McCartan; Richard G Hindley; Alex Freeman; Alex P Kirkham; Mahua Sahu; Rebecca Scott; Clare Allen; Jan Van der Meulen; Mark Emberton Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 20.096
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: John R Heard; Aurash Naser-Tavakolian; Michael Nazmifar; Michael Ahdoot Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 5.455
Authors: Lorne W Hofstetter; Henrik Odéen; Bradley D Bolster; Douglas A Christensen; Allison Payne; Dennis L Parker Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Miao Wang; Lei Zhang; Huimin Hou; Tao Gu; Cheng Shen; Xin Ding; Jintao Zhang; Xuan Wang; Jianlong Wang; Jianye Wang; Ming Liu Journal: Transl Cancer Res Date: 2021-12 Impact factor: 1.241