Eric Walser1, Anne Nance2, Leslie Ynalvez3, Shan Yong3, Jacqueline S Aoughsten2, Eduardo J Eyzaguirre4, Stephen B Williams3. 1. Department of Radiology, Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas. Electronic address: ewalser@utmb.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas. 3. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas. 4. Department of Pathology, Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Can focal laser ablation (FLA) of low to intermediate risk prostate cancer preserve sexual and urinary function with low morbidity while providing adequate oncologic outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Transrectal FLA was done in 120 patients with low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer. MR imaging thermometry controlled ablation. At 6 and 12 months, patients had clinical and MR imaging follow-up with biopsy of suspicious areas. Patients submitted surveys of sexual and urinary function. Multivariate logistic regression identified determinants of positive imaging and biopsies. Two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test evaluated scores and laboratory values. RESULTS: Median patient age was 64 years, and median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 6.05 ng/mL. Median follow-up period was 34 months (range, 17-55 months). Gleason score was 3+3=6 in 37 (30.8%), 3+4=7 in 56 (46.7%), and 4+3=7 in 27 (22.5%) patients. Tumor stage was T1c in 89 (74.2%), T2a in 26 (21.7%), and T2b in 5 (4.2%) patients. Twenty (17%) patients had additional oncologic therapy 1 year after FLA when biopsy confirmed cancer following abnormal MR imaging. There was no difference between functional scores before and after ablation. Median PSA decreased to 3.25 at 12 months (P < .001). Tumor diameter above the median (odds ratio = 3.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-7.97) was the only significant predictor for positive MR imaging after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: One year after FLA, selected patients had low morbidity, no significant changes in quality of life, and 83% freedom of retreatment rate. Sexual and urinary function did not significantly change after FLA.
PURPOSE: Can focal laser ablation (FLA) of low to intermediate risk prostate cancer preserve sexual and urinary function with low morbidity while providing adequate oncologic outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Transrectal FLA was done in 120 patients with low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer. MR imaging thermometry controlled ablation. At 6 and 12 months, patients had clinical and MR imaging follow-up with biopsy of suspicious areas. Patients submitted surveys of sexual and urinary function. Multivariate logistic regression identified determinants of positive imaging and biopsies. Two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test evaluated scores and laboratory values. RESULTS: Median patient age was 64 years, and median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 6.05 ng/mL. Median follow-up period was 34 months (range, 17-55 months). Gleason score was 3+3=6 in 37 (30.8%), 3+4=7 in 56 (46.7%), and 4+3=7 in 27 (22.5%) patients. Tumor stage was T1c in 89 (74.2%), T2a in 26 (21.7%), and T2b in 5 (4.2%) patients. Twenty (17%) patients had additional oncologic therapy 1 year after FLA when biopsy confirmed cancer following abnormal MR imaging. There was no difference between functional scores before and after ablation. Median PSA decreased to 3.25 at 12 months (P < .001). Tumor diameter above the median (odds ratio = 3.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-7.97) was the only significant predictor for positive MR imaging after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: One year after FLA, selected patients had low morbidity, no significant changes in quality of life, and 83% freedom of retreatment rate. Sexual and urinary function did not significantly change after FLA.
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: Alex Z Wang; Amir H Lebastchi; Luke P O'Connor; Michael Ahdoot; Sherif Mehralivand; Nitin Yerram; Samir S Taneja; Arvin K George; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; John F Ward; Pilar Laguna; Jean de la Rosette; Peter A Pinto Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-01-02 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Arian Mansur; Tushar Garg; Apurva Shrigiriwar; Vahid Etezadi; Christos Georgiades; Peiman Habibollahi; Timothy C Huber; Juan C Camacho; Sherif G Nour; Alan Alper Sag; John David Prologo; Nariman Nezami Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-05-24
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: Rory Geoghegan; Le Zhang; Alan Priester; Holden H Wu; Leonard Marks; Shyam Natarajan Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2022-07-18 Impact factor: 4.756
Authors: Mark Paxton; Eitan Barbalat; Nathan Perlis; Ravi J Menezes; Mark Gertner; David Dragas; Masoom A Haider; Antonio Finelli; John Trachtenberg; Sangeet Ghai Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 3.039