Catherine E Lovegrove1,2, Max Peters3, Stephanie Guillaumier4,5, Manit Arya1,5,6, Naveed Afzal7, Tim Dudderidge8, Feargus Hosking-Jervis2,3, Richard G Hindley9, Henry Lewi10, Neil McCartan4,5, Caroline M Moore4,5, Raj Nigam6,11, Chris Ogden12, Raj Persad13, Jaspal Virdi6, Mathias Winkler1, Mark Emberton4,5, Hashim U Ahmed1,2, Taimur T Shah1,2,4, Suks Minhas1,2. 1. Imperial Urology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK. 2. Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Centre, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK. 5. Department of Urology, UCLH NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 6. Department of Urology, Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Harlow, UK. 7. Department of Urology, Dorset County Hospital NHS Trust, Dorset, UK. 8. Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK. 9. Department of Urology, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Basingstoke, UK. 10. Springfield Hospital, Chelmsford, UK. 11. Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Trust, Surrey, UK. 12. Department of Academic Urology, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 13. Department of Urology, North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess change in functional outcomes after a second focal high-intensity focused ultrasonography (HIFU) treatment compared with outcomes after one focal HIFU treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicentre study (2005-2016), 821 men underwent focal HIFU for localized non-metastatic prostate cancer. The patient-reported outcome measures of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), pad usage and erectile function (EF) score were prospectively collected for up to 3 years. To be included in the study, completion of at least one follow-up questionnaire was required. The primary outcome was comparison of change in functional outcomes between baseline and follow-up after one focal HIFU procedure vs after a second focal HIFU procedure, using IPSS, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questionnaires. RESULTS: Of 821 men, 654 underwent one focal HIFU procedure and 167 underwent a second focal HIFU procedure. A total of 355 (54.3%) men undergoing one focal HIFU procedure and 65 (38.9%) with a second focal HIFU procedure returned follow-up questionnaires, respectively. The mean age and prostate-specific antigen level were 66.4 and 65.6 years, and 7.9 and 8.4 ng/mL, respectively. After one focal HIFU treatment, the mean change in IPSS was -0.03 (P = 0.02) and in IIEF (EF score) it was -0.4 (P = 0.02) at 1-2 years, with no subsequent decline. Absolute rates of erectile dysfunction increased from 9.9% to 20.8% (P = 0.08), leak-free continence decreased from 77.9% to 72.8% (P = 0.06) and pad-free continence from 98.6% to 94.8% (P = 0.07) at 1-2 years, respectively. IPSS prior to second focal HIFU treatment compared to baseline IPSS prior to first focal HIFU treatment was lower by -1.3 (P = 0.02), but mean IPSS change was +1.4 at 1-2 years (P = 0.03) and +1.2 at 2-3 years (P = 0.003) after the second focal HIFU treatment. The mean change in EF score after the second focal HIFU treatment was -0.2 at 1-2 years (P = 0.60) and -0.5 at 2-3 years (P = 0.10), with 17.8% and 6.2% of men with new erectile dysfunction. The rate of new pad use was 1.8% at 1-2 years and 2.6% at 2-3 years. CONCLUSION: A second focal HIFU procedure causes minor detrimental effects on urinary function and EF. These data can be used to counsel patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer prior to considering HIFU therapy.
OBJECTIVES: To assess change in functional outcomes after a second focal high-intensity focused ultrasonography (HIFU) treatment compared with outcomes after one focal HIFU treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicentre study (2005-2016), 821 men underwent focal HIFU for localized non-metastatic prostate cancer. The patient-reported outcome measures of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), pad usage and erectile function (EF) score were prospectively collected for up to 3 years. To be included in the study, completion of at least one follow-up questionnaire was required. The primary outcome was comparison of change in functional outcomes between baseline and follow-up after one focal HIFU procedure vs after a second focal HIFU procedure, using IPSS, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questionnaires. RESULTS: Of 821 men, 654 underwent one focal HIFU procedure and 167 underwent a second focal HIFU procedure. A total of 355 (54.3%) men undergoing one focal HIFU procedure and 65 (38.9%) with a second focal HIFU procedure returned follow-up questionnaires, respectively. The mean age and prostate-specific antigen level were 66.4 and 65.6 years, and 7.9 and 8.4 ng/mL, respectively. After one focal HIFU treatment, the mean change in IPSS was -0.03 (P = 0.02) and in IIEF (EF score) it was -0.4 (P = 0.02) at 1-2 years, with no subsequent decline. Absolute rates of erectile dysfunction increased from 9.9% to 20.8% (P = 0.08), leak-free continence decreased from 77.9% to 72.8% (P = 0.06) and pad-free continence from 98.6% to 94.8% (P = 0.07) at 1-2 years, respectively. IPSS prior to second focal HIFU treatment compared to baseline IPSS prior to first focal HIFU treatment was lower by -1.3 (P = 0.02), but mean IPSS change was +1.4 at 1-2 years (P = 0.03) and +1.2 at 2-3 years (P = 0.003) after the second focal HIFU treatment. The mean change in EF score after the second focal HIFU treatment was -0.2 at 1-2 years (P = 0.60) and -0.5 at 2-3 years (P = 0.10), with 17.8% and 6.2% of men with new erectile dysfunction. The rate of new pad use was 1.8% at 1-2 years and 2.6% at 2-3 years. CONCLUSION: A second focal HIFU procedure causes minor detrimental effects on urinary function and EF. These data can be used to counsel patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer prior to considering HIFU therapy.
Authors: Justin R Gregg; Leonardo D Borregales; Haesun Choi; Marisa Lozano; Stephen E McRae; Aradhana M Venkatesan; John W Davis; Graciela M Nogueras-Gonzalez; Louis L Pisters; John F Ward Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-01-16 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Miao Wang; Lei Zhang; Huimin Hou; Tao Gu; Cheng Shen; Xin Ding; Jintao Zhang; Xuan Wang; Jianlong Wang; Jianye Wang; Ming Liu Journal: Transl Cancer Res Date: 2021-12 Impact factor: 1.241
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