Matthijs J Scheltema1, John I Chang2, Willemien van den Bos3, Ilan Gielchinsky4, Tuan V Nguyen5, Theo de M Reijke6, Amila R Siriwardana7, Maret Böhm1, Jean J de la Rosette8, Phillip D Stricker1. 1. Garvan Institute of Medical Research and The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia; Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Garvan Institute of Medical Research and The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst; St Vincent's Prostate Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia. 3. Garvan Institute of Medical Research and The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst., St Vincent's Prostate Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia. 4. Garvan Institute of Medical Research and The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia, St Vincent's Prostate Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia. 5. Garvan Institute of Medical Research and The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia,. University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 6. Amsterdam UMC University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 7. Garvan Institute of Medical Research and The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia; University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 8. Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Department of Urology, İstanbul Medipol University, İstanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the genitourinary function and quality of life (QoL) following the ablation of different prostate segments with irreversible electroporation (IRE) for localized prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: Sixty patients who received primary focal IRE for organ-confined PCa were recruited for this study. Patients were evaluated for genitourinary function and QoL per prostate segment treated (anterior vs. posterior, apex vs. base vs. apex-to-base, unilateral vs. bilateral). IRE system settings and patient characteristics were compared between patients with preserved vs. those with impaired erectile function and urinary continence. Data were prospectively collected at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months using the expanded prostate cancer index composite, American Urological Association symptom score, SF-12 physical and mental component summary surveys. Difference over time within segments per questionnaire was evaluated using the Wilcoxon's signed rank test. Outcome differences between segments were assessed using covariance models. Baseline measurements included questionnaire scores, age, and prostate volume. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant changes over time for overall urinary (P = 0.07-0.89), bowel (P = 0.06-0.79), physical (P = 0.18-0.71) and mental (P = 0.45-0.94) QoL scores within each segment. Deterioration of sexual function scores was observed at 6 months within each segment (P = 0.001-0.16). There were no statistically significant differences in QoL scores between prostate segments (P = 0.08-0.97). Older patients or those with poor baseline sexual function at time of treatment were associated with a greater risk of developing erectile dysfunction. CONCLUSION: IRE is a feasible modality for all prostate segments without any significantly different effect on the QoL outcomes. Older patients and those with poor sexual function need to be counseled regarding the risk of erectile dysfunction.
PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the genitourinary function and quality of life (QoL) following the ablation of different prostate segments with irreversible electroporation (IRE) for localized prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: Sixty patients who received primary focal IRE for organ-confined PCa were recruited for this study. Patients were evaluated for genitourinary function and QoL per prostate segment treated (anterior vs. posterior, apex vs. base vs. apex-to-base, unilateral vs. bilateral). IRE system settings and patient characteristics were compared between patients with preserved vs. those with impaired erectile function and urinary continence. Data were prospectively collected at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months using the expanded prostate cancer index composite, American Urological Association symptom score, SF-12 physical and mental component summary surveys. Difference over time within segments per questionnaire was evaluated using the Wilcoxon's signed rank test. Outcome differences between segments were assessed using covariance models. Baseline measurements included questionnaire scores, age, and prostate volume. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant changes over time for overall urinary (P = 0.07-0.89), bowel (P = 0.06-0.79), physical (P = 0.18-0.71) and mental (P = 0.45-0.94) QoL scores within each segment. Deterioration of sexual function scores was observed at 6 months within each segment (P = 0.001-0.16). There were no statistically significant differences in QoL scores between prostate segments (P = 0.08-0.97). Older patients or those with poor baseline sexual function at time of treatment were associated with a greater risk of developing erectile dysfunction. CONCLUSION: IRE is a feasible modality for all prostate segments without any significantly different effect on the QoL outcomes. Older patients and those with poor sexual function need to be counseled regarding the risk of erectile dysfunction.
Authors: B Gandek; J E Ware; N K Aaronson; G Apolone; J B Bjorner; J E Brazier; M Bullinger; S Kaasa; A Leplege; L Prieto; M Sullivan Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 6.437
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
Authors: Willemien van den Bos; Matthijs J Scheltema; Amila R Siriwardana; Anton M F Kalsbeek; James E Thompson; Francis Ting; Maret Böhm; Anne-Maree Haynes; Ron Shnier; Warick Delprado; Phillip D Stricker Journal: BJU Int Date: 2017-09-04 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: F Ting; M Tran; M Böhm; A Siriwardana; P J Van Leeuwen; A M Haynes; W Delprado; R Shnier; P D Stricker Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2015-10-13 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: H U Ahmed; E Zacharakis; T Dudderidge; J N Armitage; R Scott; J Calleary; R Illing; A Kirkham; A Freeman; C Ogden; C Allen; M Emberton Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-06-09 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Massimo Valerio; Louise Dickinson; Afia Ali; Navin Ramachadran; Ian Donaldson; Neil Mccartan; Alex Freeman; Hashim U Ahmed; Mark Emberton Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Willemien van den Bos; D M de Bruin; A van Randen; M R W Engelbrecht; A W Postema; B G Muller; I M Varkarakis; A Skolarikos; C D Savci-Heijink; R R Jurhill; P J Zondervan; M P Laguna Pes; H Wijkstra; T M de Reijke; J J M C H de la Rosette Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-10-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Giancarlo Marra; Taimur T Shah; Daniele D'Agate; Alessandro Marquis; Giorgio Calleris; Luca Lunelli; Claudia Filippini; Marco Oderda; Marco Gatti; Massimo Valerio; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; Alberto Bossi; Juan Gomez-Rivas; Francesca Conte; Desiree Deandreis; Olivier Cussenot; Umberto Ricardi; Paolo Gontero Journal: Front Surg Date: 2022-06-07