Maximilian J Johnston1, Amr Emara2, Mohamed Noureldin2, Simon Bott3, Richard G Hindley2. 1. Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Department of Urology, Basingstoke, Hampshire, United Kingdom. Electronic address: maxj101@gmail.com. 2. Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Department of Urology, Basingstoke, Hampshire, United Kingdom. 3. Frimley Park Hospital, Department of Urology, Frimley, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report our intermediate outcomes of the use of focal ablation for treating significant unilateral prostate cancer. This technique was adopted in our center 10 years ago. With improving diagnostic accuracy of index prostate cancer lesions and a low side-effect profile, use of focal high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) ablation is increasing. METHODS: Patients were diagnosed using prostate specific antigen (PSA), multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, and template transperineal biopsies. Focal ablation of significant cancer was performed with the Sonablate device. Follow-up consisted of magnetic resonance imaging scanning, PSA, validated questionnaires, biopsy for cause, and redo HIFU if required as part of the treatment strategy. RESULTS: A total of 107 men underwent focal HIFU. In total, 88% had intermediate/high risk disease, and the mean pre-HIFU PSA was 7.7. A total of 31% had high volume Gleason 6 disease, 55% had Gleason 3+4 disease, and 13% had Gleason ≥ 4+3 disease. In total, 54 men received a hemiablation, 10 a focal ablation, and 43 a quadrant ablation. Median follow-up was 30 months, subjects' PSA dropped to an average 71% nadir. A total of 8% had biochemical recurrence and 11% required adjuvant treatment. Freedom from additional procedures for clinically significant recurrent disease, including redo-HIFU, was 85.5%. Postoperative complications included 1% new use of pads, 1.9% urethral stricture, 2.8% post-HIFU TURP, and new onset ED of 14%. CONCLUSION: In a carefully chosen cohort of patients for focal HIFU our results suggest acceptable oncological control with minimal postoperative morbidity. Further studies are required to establish this technique as a less morbid alternative to radical therapy.
OBJECTIVE: To report our intermediate outcomes of the use of focal ablation for treating significant unilateral prostate cancer. This technique was adopted in our center 10 years ago. With improving diagnostic accuracy of index prostate cancer lesions and a low side-effect profile, use of focal high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) ablation is increasing. METHODS:Patients were diagnosed using prostate specific antigen (PSA), multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, and template transperineal biopsies. Focal ablation of significant cancer was performed with the Sonablate device. Follow-up consisted of magnetic resonance imaging scanning, PSA, validated questionnaires, biopsy for cause, and redo HIFU if required as part of the treatment strategy. RESULTS: A total of 107 men underwent focal HIFU. In total, 88% had intermediate/high risk disease, and the mean pre-HIFU PSA was 7.7. A total of 31% had high volume Gleason 6 disease, 55% had Gleason 3+4 disease, and 13% had Gleason ≥ 4+3 disease. In total, 54 men received a hemiablation, 10 a focal ablation, and 43 a quadrant ablation. Median follow-up was 30 months, subjects' PSA dropped to an average 71% nadir. A total of 8% had biochemical recurrence and 11% required adjuvant treatment. Freedom from additional procedures for clinically significant recurrent disease, including redo-HIFU, was 85.5%. Postoperative complications included 1% new use of pads, 1.9% urethral stricture, 2.8% post-HIFU TURP, and new onset ED of 14%. CONCLUSION: In a carefully chosen cohort of patients for focal HIFU our results suggest acceptable oncological control with minimal postoperative morbidity. Further studies are required to establish this technique as a less morbid alternative to radical therapy.
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: Giuseppe Fallara; Paolo Capogrosso; Paolo Maggio; Alessandro Taborelli; Francesco Montorsi; Federico Dehò; Andrea Salonia Journal: Int J Impot Res Date: 2020-09-30 Impact factor: 2.896
Authors: Arnas Bakavicius; Giancarlo Marra; Petr Macek; Cary Robertson; Andre L Abreu; Arvin K George; Bernard Malavaud; Patrick Coloby; Pascal Rischmann; Marco Moschini; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Abhinav Sidana; Armando Stabile; Rafael Tourinho-Barbosa; Jean de la Rosette; Hashim Ahmed; Thomas Polascik; Xavier Cathelineau; Rafael Sanchez-Salas Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2022 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.541
Authors: Amir H Lebastchi; Arvin K George; Thomas J Polascik; Jonathan Coleman; Jean de la Rosette; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Michael A Gorin; Abhinav Sidana; Sangeet Ghai; Kae Jack Tay; John F Ward; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; Berrend G Muller; Bernard Malavaud; Pierre Mozer; Sebastien Crouzet; Peter L Choyke; Osamu Ukimura; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Peter A Pinto Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 20.096