Rafael R Tourinho-Barbosa1,2, Bradford J Wood3, Andre Luis Abreu4, Bruno Nahar5, Toshitaka Shin6, Selcuk Guven7, Thomas J Polascik8. 1. Department of Urology, Hospital CardioPulmonar, 157, Ponciano Oliveira Street, Salvador, Bahia, 40170-530, Brazil. rafael.tourinho@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Urology, Faculdade de Medicina Do ABC (ABC Medical School), São Paulo, Brazil. rafael.tourinho@hotmail.com. 3. Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Interventional Radiology, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, NIH Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA. 4. USC Institute of Urology and Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA. 6. Department of Urology, Oita University Faculty of Medicine, Oita, Japan. 7. Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey. 8. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review the current evidence regarding protocols and outcomes of image-guided focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: A literature search of the latest published studies assessing primary FT for PCa was carried out in Medline and Cochrane library databases followed by a critical review. FT modalities, follow-up strategies, and oncological and toxicity outcomes were summarized and discussed in this review. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies with six different sources of energy met the inclusion criteria. A heterogeneity of patient selection, energy sources, treatment templates, and definitions of failure was found among the studies. While a third of patients may be found to have additional cancer burden over 3-5 years following FT, most patients will remain free of a radical procedure. The vast majority of patients maintain urinary continence and good erectile function after FT. Acute urinary retention is the most common complication, whilst severe complications remain rare. CONCLUSION: An increasing number of prospective studies with longer follow-up have been recently published. Acceptable cancer control and low treatment toxicity after FT have been consistently reported. Follow-up imaging and routine biopsy must be encouraged post-FT. While there is no reliable PSA threshold to predict failure after FT, reporting post-FT positive biopsies and retreatment rates appear to be standard when assessing treatment efficacy.
PURPOSE: To review the current evidence regarding protocols and outcomes of image-guided focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: A literature search of the latest published studies assessing primary FT for PCa was carried out in Medline and Cochrane library databases followed by a critical review. FT modalities, follow-up strategies, and oncological and toxicity outcomes were summarized and discussed in this review. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies with six different sources of energy met the inclusion criteria. A heterogeneity of patient selection, energy sources, treatment templates, and definitions of failure was found among the studies. While a third of patients may be found to have additional cancer burden over 3-5 years following FT, most patients will remain free of a radical procedure. The vast majority of patients maintain urinary continence and good erectile function after FT. Acute urinary retention is the most common complication, whilst severe complications remain rare. CONCLUSION: An increasing number of prospective studies with longer follow-up have been recently published. Acceptable cancer control and low treatment toxicity after FT have been consistently reported. Follow-up imaging and routine biopsy must be encouraged post-FT. While there is no reliable PSA threshold to predict failure after FT, reporting post-FT positive biopsies and retreatment rates appear to be standard when assessing treatment efficacy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Ablation techniques; Focal therapy; Localized; Outcome; Prostate cancer
Authors: Kae Jack Tay; Mahul B Amin; Sangeet Ghai; Rafael E Jimenez; James G Kench; Laurence Klotz; Rodolfo Montironi; Satoru Muto; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Baris Turkbey; Arnauld Villers; Thomas J Polascik Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-06-09 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Mark Douglas Tyson; Tatsuki Koyama; Dan Lee; Karen E Hoffman; Matthew J Resnick; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Matthew R Cooperberg; Michael Goodman; Sheldon Greenfield; Ann S Hamilton; Mia Hashibe; Lisa E Paddock; Antoinette Stroup; Vivien Chen; Ralph Conwill; Dan McCollum; David F Penson; Daniel A Barocas Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-02-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Olivia Lodeizen; Martijn de Bruin; Scott Eggener; Sébastien Crouzet; Sangeet Ghai; Ioannis Varkarakis; Aaron Katz; Jose Luis Dominguez-Escrig; Sascha Pahernik; Theo de Reijke; Jean de la Rosette Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Massimo Valerio; Yannick Cerantola; Scott E Eggener; Herbert Lepor; Thomas J Polascik; Arnauld Villers; Mark Emberton Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-08-29 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Stephanie Guillaumier; Max Peters; Manit Arya; Naveed Afzal; Susan Charman; Tim Dudderidge; Feargus Hosking-Jervis; Richard G Hindley; Henry Lewi; Neil McCartan; Caroline M Moore; Raj Nigam; Chris Ogden; Raj Persad; Karishma Shah; Jan van der Meulen; Jaspal Virdi; Mathias Winkler; Mark Emberton; Hashim U Ahmed Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-06-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jean J M C H de la Rosette; Rafael Sanchez Salas; Art Rastinehad; Thomas J Polascik Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-03-02 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Rafael R Tourinho-Barbosa; Lucas Teixeira Batista; Xavier Cathelineau; Javier Sanchez-Macias; Rafael Sanchez-Salas Journal: Turk J Urol Date: 2020-10-09