PURPOSE: Clinically significant, localized prostate cancer is currently treated with whole gland therapy. This approach is effective but associated with genitourinary and rectal side effects. Focal therapy of prostate cancer has been proposed as an alternative. The aim of this study was to determine the oncologic and functional outcomes of focal high intensity focused ultrasound therapy of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this single center, prospective study 75 men were treated between April 2014 and April 2018. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy were performed to localize prostate cancer, followed by focal ablation with high intensity focused ultrasound. The study primary end point was the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as Gleason score 7 or greater, at 6-month followup transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy. Genitourinary side effects were of secondary interest. RESULTS: Median patient age was 67 years (IQR 60-71) and median prostate specific antigen was 5.87 ng/ml (IQR 4.65-7.44). There were 5 low risk (6.7%) and 70 intermediate risk (93.3%) cancers. Clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 41% of the men (95% CI 30.3-53.0) who underwent biopsy at 6 months and the median number of sampled cores was 44 (IQR 36-44). Prostate specific antigen (OR 1.17, IQR 0.49-2.85, p=0.71) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (14.3% sensitivity, IQR 6.7-31.5) performed poorly to predict positive biopsies. Pad-free continence and erection sufficient for penetration were preserved in 63 of 64 (98.4%) and 31 of 45 patients (68.9%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Focal therapy with high intensity focused ultrasound leads to a low rate of genitourinary side effects. Followup biopsy of treated and untreated prostates remains the only modality to adequately select men in need of early salvage treatment.
PURPOSE: Clinically significant, localized prostate cancer is currently treated with whole gland therapy. This approach is effective but associated with genitourinary and rectal side effects. Focal therapy of prostate cancer has been proposed as an alternative. The aim of this study was to determine the oncologic and functional outcomes of focal high intensity focused ultrasound therapy of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this single center, prospective study 75 men were treated between April 2014 and April 2018. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy were performed to localize prostate cancer, followed by focal ablation with high intensity focused ultrasound. The study primary end point was the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as Gleason score 7 or greater, at 6-month followup transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy. Genitourinary side effects were of secondary interest. RESULTS: Median patient age was 67 years (IQR 60-71) and median prostate specific antigen was 5.87 ng/ml (IQR 4.65-7.44). There were 5 low risk (6.7%) and 70 intermediate risk (93.3%) cancers. Clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 41% of the men (95% CI 30.3-53.0) who underwent biopsy at 6 months and the median number of sampled cores was 44 (IQR 36-44). Prostate specific antigen (OR 1.17, IQR 0.49-2.85, p=0.71) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (14.3% sensitivity, IQR 6.7-31.5) performed poorly to predict positive biopsies. Pad-free continence and erection sufficient for penetration were preserved in 63 of 64 (98.4%) and 31 of 45 patients (68.9%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Focal therapy with high intensity focused ultrasound leads to a low rate of genitourinary side effects. Followup biopsy of treated and untreated prostates remains the only modality to adequately select men in need of early salvage treatment.
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: John R Heard; Aurash Naser-Tavakolian; Michael Nazmifar; Michael Ahdoot Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 5.455
Authors: Soleen Ghafoor; Daniel Stocker; Olivio F Donati; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Anton S Becker; Borna K Barth; Daniel Eberli Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2020-11
Authors: Niklas Westhoff; Ramona Ernst; Karl Friedrich Kowalewski; Laura Schmidt; Thomas Stefan Worst; Maurice Stephan Michel; Jost von Hardenberg Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 4.226