Bernd Rosenhammer1, Roman Ganzer2, Florian Zeman3, Theresa Näger4, Hans-Martin Fritsche5, Andreas Blana6, Maximilian Burger4, Johannes Bründl4. 1. Department of Urology, University of Regensburg, Caritas St. Josef Medical Center, Landshuter Str. 65, 93053, Regensburg, Germany. bernd.rosenhammer@ukr.de. 2. Department of Urology, Asklepios Hospital Bad Tölz, Bad Tölz, Germany. 3. Center for Clinical Studies, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany. 4. Department of Urology, University of Regensburg, Caritas St. Josef Medical Center, Landshuter Str. 65, 93053, Regensburg, Germany. 5. Department of Urology, Surgical Clinic Munich-Bogenhausen, Munich, Germany. 6. Department of Urology, Fürth Hospital, Fürth, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the oncological long-term efficacy of whole gland high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) therapy and radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. METHODS: 418 patients after open RP (1997-2004) were compared with 469 patients after whole gland HIFU (1997-2009) without preselection. Oncological follow-up focused on biochemical relapse, salvage treatment, life status and cause-specific mortality. The univariate log rank test was used to compare both treatment options regarding overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), biochemical failure-free survival (BFS) and salvage treatment-free survival (STS). To adjust the treatment effect for further prognostic baseline variables, a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model was calculated for each end point. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 13.3 years in the RP group and 6.5 years in the HIFU group. OS/CSS/BFS/STS rates at 10 years were 91/98/80/80% after RP and 76/94/70/71% after HIFU. HIFU therapy (reference RP) was a significant and independent predictor for an inferior OS, CSS and STS. In subgroup analysis, HIFU provided significantly reduced CSS for intermediate- (p = 0.010) and high-risk patients (p = 0.048); whereas no difference was observed in the low-risk group, intermediate-risk HIFU patients showed a significantly inferior STS (p = 0.040). CONCLUSIONS: While whole gland HIFU offers a comparable long-term efficacy for low-risk patients, sufficient cancer control for high-risk patients is more than doubtful. For the subgroup of intermediate-risk patients, CSS rates seem to be comparable up to 10 years suggesting that HIFU may be an alternative for older patients, although a higher risk of salvage treatment should be expected.
PURPOSE: To compare the oncological long-term efficacy of whole gland high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) therapy and radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. METHODS: 418 patients after open RP (1997-2004) were compared with 469 patients after whole gland HIFU (1997-2009) without preselection. Oncological follow-up focused on biochemical relapse, salvage treatment, life status and cause-specific mortality. The univariate log rank test was used to compare both treatment options regarding overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), biochemical failure-free survival (BFS) and salvage treatment-free survival (STS). To adjust the treatment effect for further prognostic baseline variables, a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model was calculated for each end point. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 13.3 years in the RP group and 6.5 years in the HIFU group. OS/CSS/BFS/STS rates at 10 years were 91/98/80/80% after RP and 76/94/70/71% after HIFU. HIFU therapy (reference RP) was a significant and independent predictor for an inferior OS, CSS and STS. In subgroup analysis, HIFU provided significantly reduced CSS for intermediate- (p = 0.010) and high-risk patients (p = 0.048); whereas no difference was observed in the low-risk group, intermediate-risk HIFU patients showed a significantly inferior STS (p = 0.040). CONCLUSIONS: While whole gland HIFU offers a comparable long-term efficacy for low-risk patients, sufficient cancer control for high-risk patients is more than doubtful. For the subgroup of intermediate-risk patients, CSS rates seem to be comparable up to 10 years suggesting that HIFU may be an alternative for older patients, although a higher risk of salvage treatment should be expected.
Authors: Mack Roach; Gerald Hanks; Howard Thames; Paul Schellhammer; William U Shipley; Gerald H Sokol; Howard Sandler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Paolo Capogrosso; Eric Barret; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; Igor Nunes-Silva; François Rozet; Marc Galiano; Eugenio Ventimiglia; Alberto Briganti; Andrea Salonia; Francesco Montorsi; Xavier Cathelineau Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan; J Athene Lane; Malcolm Mason; Chris Metcalfe; Peter Holding; Michael Davis; Tim J Peters; Emma L Turner; Richard M Martin; Jon Oxley; Mary Robinson; John Staffurth; Eleanor Walsh; Prasad Bollina; James Catto; Andrew Doble; Alan Doherty; David Gillatt; Roger Kockelbergh; Howard Kynaston; Alan Paul; Philip Powell; Stephen Prescott; Derek J Rosario; Edward Rowe; David E Neal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andreas Blana; Sebastian Rogenhofer; Roman Ganzer; Jens-Claudio Lunz; Martin Schostak; Wolf F Wieland; Bernhard Walter Journal: Urology Date: 2008-10-01 Impact factor: 2.649