Armando Stabile1,2,3, Clement Orczyk1,3, Feargus Hosking-Jervis3, Francesco Giganti3,4, Manit Arya1,3, Richard G Hindley1, Louise Dickinson4, Clare Allen4, Shonit Punwani4, Charles Jameson5, Alex Freeman5, Neil McCartan3, Francesco Montorsi2, Alberto Briganti2, Hashim U Ahmed6,7, Mark Emberton1,3, Caroline M Moore1,3. 1. Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 2. Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. 3. Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK. 4. Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 5. Department of Pathology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 6. Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK. 7. Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report medium-term oncological outcomes in men receiving primary focal treatment with high-intensity focused ultrasonography ( HIFU) for prostate cancer (PCa). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with PCa treated with primary focal HIFU at two centres by six treating clinicians were assessed. Patients were submitted to either focal ablation or hemi-ablation using HIFU (Sonablate 500). The primary objective of the study was to assess medium-term oncological outcomes, defined as overall survival, freedom from biopsy failure, freedom from any further treatment and freedom from radical treatment after focal HIFU. The secondary objective was to evaluate the changes in pathological features among patients treated with focal HIFU over time. We also assessed the relationship between year of surgery and 5-year retreatment probability. RESULTS: A total of 1032 men treated between November 2005 and October 2017 were assessed. The median age was 65 years and median prostate-specific antigen level was 7 ng/mL. The majority of patients had a Gleason score of 3 + 4 or above (80.3%). The median (interquartile range) follow-up was 36 (14-64) months. The overall survival rates at 24, 60 and 96 months were 99%, 97% and 97%, respectively. Freedom from biopsy failure, defined as absence of Gleason 3 + 4 disease, was 84%, 64% and 54% at 24, 60 and 96 months. Freedom from any further treatment was 85%, 59% and 46% at 24, 60 and 96 months, respectively. Approximately 70% of patients who were retreated received a second focal treatment. Freedom from radical treatment was 98%, 91% and 81% at 24, 60 and 96 months. During the study period, we observed an increase in the proportion of patients undergoing focal HIFU with Gleason 3 + 4 disease and with T2 stage disease as defined by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Finally, there was a reduction over time in the proportion of patients undergoing re-treatment within 5 years of first treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Focal HIFU for PCa is a feasible therapeutic strategy, with acceptable survival and oncological results and a reduction in the 5-year retreatment rates over the last decade. Re-do focal treatment is a feasible technique whose functional and oncological outcomes have still to be evaluated.
OBJECTIVE: To report medium-term oncological outcomes in men receiving primary focal treatment with high-intensity focused ultrasonography ( HIFU) for prostate cancer (PCa). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with PCa treated with primary focal HIFU at two centres by six treating clinicians were assessed. Patients were submitted to either focal ablation or hemi-ablation using HIFU (Sonablate 500). The primary objective of the study was to assess medium-term oncological outcomes, defined as overall survival, freedom from biopsy failure, freedom from any further treatment and freedom from radical treatment after focal HIFU. The secondary objective was to evaluate the changes in pathological features among patients treated with focal HIFU over time. We also assessed the relationship between year of surgery and 5-year retreatment probability. RESULTS: A total of 1032 men treated between November 2005 and October 2017 were assessed. The median age was 65 years and median prostate-specific antigen level was 7 ng/mL. The majority of patients had a Gleason score of 3 + 4 or above (80.3%). The median (interquartile range) follow-up was 36 (14-64) months. The overall survival rates at 24, 60 and 96 months were 99%, 97% and 97%, respectively. Freedom from biopsy failure, defined as absence of Gleason 3 + 4 disease, was 84%, 64% and 54% at 24, 60 and 96 months. Freedom from any further treatment was 85%, 59% and 46% at 24, 60 and 96 months, respectively. Approximately 70% of patients who were retreated received a second focal treatment. Freedom from radical treatment was 98%, 91% and 81% at 24, 60 and 96 months. During the study period, we observed an increase in the proportion of patients undergoing focal HIFU with Gleason 3 + 4 disease and with T2 stage disease as defined by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Finally, there was a reduction over time in the proportion of patients undergoing re-treatment within 5 years of first treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Focal HIFU for PCa is a feasible therapeutic strategy, with acceptable survival and oncological results and a reduction in the 5-year retreatment rates over the last decade. Re-do focal treatment is a feasible technique whose functional and oncological outcomes have still to be evaluated.
Authors: Rafael R Tourinho-Barbosa; Lucas Teixeira Batista; Xavier Cathelineau; Javier Sanchez-Macias; Rafael Sanchez-Salas Journal: Turk J Urol Date: 2020-10-09
Authors: Rafael R Tourinho-Barbosa; Bradford J Wood; Andre Luis Abreu; Bruno Nahar; Toshitaka Shin; Selcuk Guven; Thomas J Polascik Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-05-22 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: R Bischoff; M Chaloupka; T Westhofen; T Grimm; B Schlenker; P Weinhold; D Tilki; C G Stief; A Kretschmer Journal: Urologe A Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Behfar Ehdaie; Clare M Tempany; Ford Holland; Daniel D Sjoberg; Adam S Kibel; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Jeremy C Durack; Oguz Akin; Andrew J Vickers; Peter T Scardino; Dan Sperling; Jeffrey Y C Wong; Bertram Yuh; David A Woodrum; Lance A Mynderse; Steven S Raman; Allan J Pantuck; Marc H Schiffman; Timothy D McClure; Geoffrey A Sonn; Pejman Ghanouni Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2022-06-14 Impact factor: 54.433
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
Authors: Masakatsu Oishi; Inderbir S Gill; Alessandro Tafuri; Aliasger Shakir; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Tsuyoshi Iwata; Atsuko Iwata; Akbar Ashrafi; Daniel Park; Jie Cai; Mihir Desai; Osamu Ukimura; Duke K Bahn; Andre Luis Abreu Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-07-26 Impact factor: 7.600