Behfar Ehdaie1, Clare M Tempany2, Ford Holland3, Daniel D Sjoberg3, Adam S Kibel4, Quoc-Dien Trinh4, Jeremy C Durack5, Oguz Akin6, Andrew J Vickers3, Peter T Scardino7, Dan Sperling8, Jeffrey Y C Wong9, Bertram Yuh10, David A Woodrum11, Lance A Mynderse12, Steven S Raman13, Allan J Pantuck14, Marc H Schiffman15, Timothy D McClure16, Geoffrey A Sonn17, Pejman Ghanouni18. 1. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: ehdaieb@mskcc.org. 2. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Division of Urology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Cordis-X, Miami Lakes, FL, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 7. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 8. Sperling Prostate Center, Delray Beach, FL, USA. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, USA. 10. Department of Urology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, USA. 11. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 12. Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 13. Department of Radiology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 14. Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 15. Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 16. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 17. Department of Urology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 18. Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Men with grade group 2 or 3 prostate cancer are often considered ineligible for active surveillance; some patients with grade group 2 prostate cancer who are managed with active surveillance will have early disease progression requiring radical therapy. This study aimed to investigate whether MRI-guided focused ultrasound focal therapy can safely reduce treatment burden for patients with localised grade group 2 or 3 intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: In this single-arm, multicentre, phase 2b study conducted at eight health-care centres in the USA, we recruited men aged 50 years and older with unilateral, MRI-visible, primary, intermediate-risk, previously untreated prostate adenocarcinoma (prostate-specific antigen ≤20 ng/mL, grade group 2 or 3; tumour classification ≤T2) confirmed on combined biopsy (combining MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies). MRI-guided focused ultrasound energy, sequentially titrated to temperatures sufficient for tissue ablation (about 60-70°C), was delivered to the index lesion and a planned margin of 5 mm or more of normal tissue, using real-time magnetic resonance thermometry for intraoperative monitoring. Co-primary outcomes were oncological outcomes (absence of grade group 2 and higher cancer in the treated area at 6-month and 24-month combined biopsy; when 24-month biopsy data were not available and grade group 2 or higher cancer had occurred in the treated area at 6 months, the 6-month biopsy results were included in the final analysis) and safety (adverse events up to 24 months) in all patients enrolled in the study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01657942, and is no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between May 4, 2017, and Dec 21, 2018, we assessed 194 patients for eligibility and treated 101 patients with MRI-guided focused ultrasound. Median age was 63 years (IQR 58-67) and median concentration of prostate-specific antigen was 5·7 ng/mL (IQR 4·2-7·5). Most cancers were grade group 2 (79 [78%] of 101). At 24 months, 78 (88% [95% CI 79-94]) of 89 men had no evidence of grade group 2 or higher prostate cancer in the treated area. No grade 4 or grade 5 treatment-related adverse events were reported, and only one grade 3 adverse event (urinary tract infection) was reported. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: 24-month biopsy outcomes show that MRI-guided focused ultrasound focal therapy is safe and effectively treats grade group 2 or 3 prostate cancer. These results support focal therapy for select patients and its use in comparative trials to determine if a tissue-preserving approach is effective in delaying or eliminating the need for radical whole-gland treatment in the long term. FUNDING: Insightec and the National Cancer Institute.
BACKGROUND: Men with grade group 2 or 3 prostate cancer are often considered ineligible for active surveillance; some patients with grade group 2 prostate cancer who are managed with active surveillance will have early disease progression requiring radical therapy. This study aimed to investigate whether MRI-guided focused ultrasound focal therapy can safely reduce treatment burden for patients with localised grade group 2 or 3 intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: In this single-arm, multicentre, phase 2b study conducted at eight health-care centres in the USA, we recruited men aged 50 years and older with unilateral, MRI-visible, primary, intermediate-risk, previously untreated prostate adenocarcinoma (prostate-specific antigen ≤20 ng/mL, grade group 2 or 3; tumour classification ≤T2) confirmed on combined biopsy (combining MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies). MRI-guided focused ultrasound energy, sequentially titrated to temperatures sufficient for tissue ablation (about 60-70°C), was delivered to the index lesion and a planned margin of 5 mm or more of normal tissue, using real-time magnetic resonance thermometry for intraoperative monitoring. Co-primary outcomes were oncological outcomes (absence of grade group 2 and higher cancer in the treated area at 6-month and 24-month combined biopsy; when 24-month biopsy data were not available and grade group 2 or higher cancer had occurred in the treated area at 6 months, the 6-month biopsy results were included in the final analysis) and safety (adverse events up to 24 months) in all patients enrolled in the study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01657942, and is no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between May 4, 2017, and Dec 21, 2018, we assessed 194 patients for eligibility and treated 101 patients with MRI-guided focused ultrasound. Median age was 63 years (IQR 58-67) and median concentration of prostate-specific antigen was 5·7 ng/mL (IQR 4·2-7·5). Most cancers were grade group 2 (79 [78%] of 101). At 24 months, 78 (88% [95% CI 79-94]) of 89 men had no evidence of grade group 2 or higher prostate cancer in the treated area. No grade 4 or grade 5 treatment-related adverse events were reported, and only one grade 3 adverse event (urinary tract infection) was reported. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: 24-month biopsy outcomes show that MRI-guided focused ultrasound focal therapy is safe and effectively treats grade group 2 or 3 prostate cancer. These results support focal therapy for select patients and its use in comparative trials to determine if a tissue-preserving approach is effective in delaying or eliminating the need for radical whole-gland treatment in the long term. FUNDING: Insightec and the National Cancer Institute.
Authors: Nelly Tan; Daniel J Margolis; David Y Lu; Kevin G King; Jiaoti Huang; Robert E Reiter; Steven S Raman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Armando Stabile; Clement Orczyk; Feargus Hosking-Jervis; Francesco Giganti; Manit Arya; Richard G Hindley; Louise Dickinson; Clare Allen; Shonit Punwani; Charles Jameson; Alex Freeman; Neil McCartan; Francesco Montorsi; Alberto Briganti; Hashim U Ahmed; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore Journal: BJU Int Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Julien Le Nobin; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Arnauld Villers; Clément Orczyk; Fang-Ming Deng; Jonathan Melamed; Artem Mikheev; Henry Rusinek; Samir S Taneja Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-02-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ronald C Chen; R Bryan Rumble; D Andrew Loblaw; Antonio Finelli; Behfar Ehdaie; Matthew R Cooperberg; Scott C Morgan; Scott Tyldesley; John J Haluschak; Winston Tan; Stewart Justman; Suneil Jain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sigrid Carlsson; Nicole Benfante; Ricardo Alvim; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew Vickers; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Michal Wiseman; Maha Mamoor; Behfar Ehdaie; Vincent Laudone; Peter Scardino; James Eastham; Karim Touijer Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Joseph M Norris; Lina M Carmona Echeverria; Simon R J Bott; Louise C Brown; Nick Burns-Cox; Tim Dudderidge; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Eleni Frangou; Alex Freeman; Maneesh Ghei; Alastair Henderson; Richard G Hindley; Richard S Kaplan; Alex Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Chris Parker; Raj Persad; Shonit Punwani; Derek J Rosario; Iqbal S Shergill; Vasilis Stavrinides; Mathias Winkler; Hayley C Whitaker; Hashim U Ahmed; Mark Emberton Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-05-01 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