Assessment of Return to Baseline Urinary and Sexual Function Following Primary Focal Cryotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer

An Update on Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Radical treatments and active surveillance are valid therapeutic approaches for low-risk prostate cancer. The oncologic effectiveness and morbidity of Radical Prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy have been broadly validated. Focal therapies pursue to reduce the morbidity observed after radical treatments, while preserving the oncologic effectiveness. This study aims to review the state-of-the-art about principles, oncologic effectiveness, morbidity, and side-effects associated with leading focal therapies. We review and summarize articles related with Cryotherapy, High-Intensity Focal Ultrasound (HIFU), Photodynamic Therapy (PDT), and Irreversible Electroporating (IRE) published in MEDLINE from 2000 to 2022. There is a wide heterogeneity in terms of the measurement of effectiveness and morbidity. Hence, comparing different energies, strategies and protocols seem to be unprecise and controversial. Cryosurgery and HIFU have reported more clinical experience than PDT and IRE. Biochemical recurrence rate after the first session varied from 4.5% to 23%, and up to 20% of patients underwent a salvage radical treatment. The reported incidence of erectile disfunction and urinary incontinence ranges from 3% to 50% and 0% to 34%, respectively. None randomized clinical trial comparing any focal therapy to any radical treatment has been published. We conclude that the expansion of focal therapies requires the consolidation of MRI-guided fusion biopsies in everyday clinical practice. Short-term oncologic effectiveness has been proved and supports their usefulness in low-risk patients unfit for surgical treatment. However, long-term effects and the clinical experience in intermediate and high-risk patients remains limited. Currently none of the focal therapies can be considered the Gold Standard for low-risk patients.

Focal therapy versus radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy as primary treatment options for non-metastatic prostate cancer: results of a cost-effectiveness analysis

AIMS

Focal therapy treats individual areas of tumour in non-metastatic prostate cancer in patients unsuitable for active surveillance. The aim of this work was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of focal therapy versus prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov cohort health state transition model with four health states (stable disease, local recurrence, metastatic disease and death) was created, evaluating costs and utilities over a 10-year time horizon for patients diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer. National Health Service (NHS) for England perspective was used, based on direct healthcare costs. Clinical transition probabilities were derived from prostate cancer registries in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, EBRT and focal therapy using cryotherapy (Boston Scientific) or high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) (Sonablate). Propensity score matching was used to ensure that at-risk populations were comparable. Variables included age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group, maximum cancer core length (mm), T-stage and year of treatment.

RESULTS

Focal therapy was associated with a lower overall cost and higher quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains than either prostatectomy or EBRT, dominating both treatment strategies. Positive incremental net monetary benefit (NMB) values confirm focal therapy as cost-effective versus the alternatives at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of £30,000/QALY. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses revealed consistent results.

LIMITATIONS

Data used to calculate the transition probabilities were derived from a limited number of hospitals meaning that other potential treatment options were excluded. Limited data were available on later outcomes and none on quality of life data, therefore, literature-based estimates were used.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-effectiveness modelling demonstrates use of focal therapy (cryotherapy or HIFU) is associated with greater QALY gains at a lower overall cost than either radical prostatectomy or EBRT, representing good value for money in the NHS.

Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer: The Impact on Sexual Function

Focal therapy (FT) has emerged as a potential treatment for localized prostate cancer (PCa) with encouraging functional outcomes. According to the compelling evidence based on meta-analyses and recent trials, erectile function (EF) is mostly retained at 6 and 12 months after FT when compared to baseline. These findings are consistent across different energy sources reported to date. However, overall, quality of life, including impotence, was not the endpoint for most studies. Additionally, impotency has not been consistently reported in most of the recent literature. Furthermore, confounding factors such as baseline potency and usage of phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors (PDE5-I) were also frequently undisclosed. Long-term functional outcomes are awaited. To fully comprehend how FT affects EF, more extensive long-term randomized clinical trials using EF as a primary outcome are needed.

Assessment after focal therapy: what is the latest?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review assessment after focal therapy (FT) in the context of developments from the past two years.

RECENT FINDINGS

With a paucity of high-quality studies, recent findings are primarily reliant on results from institutional-based cohorts and reports of expert consensus. Notably, oncologic treatment failure should be further stratified into recurrence in the in-field or out-of-field ablation zone, and both regions should be surveilled postoperatively. Monitoring primarily consists of periodic evaluations of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and magnetic resonance imaging, with histologic sampling needed to confirm suspicion of recurrence. Recent investigations into PSA derivatives, contrast-enhanced ultrasound, and prostate-specific membrane antigen imaging have shown preliminary promise. Although postablation functional outcomes are generally accepted to be excellent, they are limited by the wide range of patient-reported measures, variability in individual practice, and low questionnaire completion rates.

SUMMARY

There is still a need for high-level, long-term data to inform exact standardized protocols to manage patients after FT. A multifaceted approach is required to surveil patients and identify those at risk of recurrence. Embracing shared responsibility between the patient and clinician to fastidiously monitor the infield and out-of-field ablation zones postoperatively is critical to maximize oncologic outcomes.

Detailing Sexual Outcomes After Focal Therapy for Localised Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Focal therapy has emerged as a promising option to treat well-selected men with localised prostate cancer while preserving healthy prostate tissue and key structures, such as the urethral sphincter and neurovascular bundles. However, how this tissue preservation may translate into improved outcomes, particularly into improved sexual outcomes, is still an active research field.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to summarise the existing evidence, in order to provide patients with updated data on what to expect after treatment and help identify gaps in current knowledge that may warrant future research.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic literature search was conducted on Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science. The search strategy was defined using the "litsearchr" function in R based on a preliminary "naïve" search using the following terms on Medline: (("focal therapy" OR "focal treatment") AND ("prostate cancer") AND ("sexual function" OR "erectile function")). A total of 42 studies, comprising 3117 patients treated and 2352 with available sexual outcomes, were included in the qualitative data synthesis and 26 in a random-effect meta-analysis.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The five-item International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) was the most frequently used questionnaire (30/42 studies), with completion rates ranging from 24% to 100% at 18-24 mo. A decrease was noted at 3 mo (IIEF-5 decrease estimate -3.70 [95% confidence interval -4.43, -2.96]), with improvements at 6 mo (-2.18 [-2.91, -1.46]) and 12 mo (-2.14 [-2.96, -1.32]). Studies in which patients had an altered baseline sexual function were more likely to report a significant and durable postoperative decrease in erectile function scores. The patient-reported outcome questionnaires used were not designed for a diverse population. Functional outcomes were not the primary endpoint and have not been reported consistently in most studies considered.

CONCLUSIONS

Focal therapy led to changes in erectile function in most cases under the significance threshold of the patient-reported outcome questionnaires used. However, patients should be counselled according to their baseline erectile function. More research is warranted to detail aspects other than erectile function, such as ejaculation or orgasm. The early postoperative period appears key to study sexual changes after focal therapy, while only a moderate decrease is expected at 12 mo.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed the published literature detailing the sexual consequences of focal therapy for localised prostate cancer using patient-reported outcome questionnaires. Patients were likely to describe a significant decrease in their erectile function at 3 mo, with improvements noted at 6 and 12 mo. The results obtained may not be reproducible in a more diverse population, and further research is warranted to better study aspects other than erectile function, such as ejaculation or orgasm.

Early Trajectories of Patient Reported Outcomes in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Lumpectomy Versus Mastectomy

PURPOSE

This study was designed to: (1) characterize longitudinal patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between breast cancer patients undergoing lumpectomy and mastectomy and (2) compare return to baseline scores at 3 months and 6 months postoperatively.

METHODS

Newly diagnosed breast cancer patients seen at an academic breast center between June 2019 and February 2021 were invited to participate in longitudinal PRO surveys at their initial clinic visit. If willing to participate, patients were emailed the validated BREAST-Q™ questionnaire at the initial clinic visit (baseline), 2 weeks after surgery, and then every 3 months for the first year. We used linear mixed models to estimate the differences in slopes over time between lumpectomy and mastectomy for each PRO measure. Pearson's Chi-square tests with Yates' continuity correction were used to compare proportions of patients who return to baseline PRO scores. P < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Of 164 patients invited to participate, 100 (61%) completed a baseline survey and were included in analyses. Mastectomy patients had significantly greater decreases in breast satisfaction (P = 0.002), psychosocial well-being (P < 0.0001), and sexual well-being (P < 0.0001) over time compared with lumpectomy patients. Both surgical groups reported a decrease in physical well-being, although the decline was more significant in lumpectomy patients (P = 0.005). At 3 months and 6 months after surgery, significantly larger proportions of lumpectomy patients returned to their baseline breast satisfaction, psychosocial well-being, and physical well-being compared with mastectomy patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding how outcomes important to patients change over the care continuum can provide opportunities for early intervention and may prevent debilitating long-term morbidities of treatment.

Long-term Outcomes of Focal Cryotherapy for Low- to Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: Results and Matched Pair Analysis with Active Surveillance

BACKGROUND

To date, only one trial compared focal therapy and active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). In addition, long-term outcomes of focal cryotherapy (FC) are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to evaluate long-term outcomes of FC and compare them with AS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We included two prospective series of 121 (FC) and 459 (AS) consecutive patients (2008-2018) for low- to intermediate-risk PCa.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Study outcomes were radical therapy-free or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)-free, any treatment-free, metastasis-free, and overall survival. A matched pair analysis was performed using seven covariates.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The median FC follow-up was 85 mo (interquartile range 58-104); 92 (76%) men had International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 1. Among matched variables, no significant differences were present except for cT stage and year of entry (both p < 0.01). Ten-year radical therapy-free or ADT-free, any treatment-free, metastasis-free, and overall survival were 51%, 40.2%, 93.9%, and 97%, respectively for FC. No differences were noted with AS (all p > 0.05), with the exception of time to radical therapy, time to radical therapy and ADT, and time to any treatment, all being shorter for AS (all p < 0.01). Freedom from radical treatment or ADT was higher for FC (AS 10 yr 39.3%; p = 0.04). Complications were relatively rare (26.5%) and mainly of low grade (Clavien >2, n = 3); three men developed incontinence (p = 0.0814), while both International Index of Erectile Function 5 and International Prostate Symptom Score scores increased (p = 0.0287 and p = 0.0165, respectively). Limitations include absence of randomization.

CONCLUSIONS

At an early long-term follow-up, FC in the context of mainly low-risk PCa is safe and increases time to radical therapy but does not provide meaningful oncological advantages compared with AS.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We compared focal cryotherapy with active surveillance mainly for low-risk prostate cancer. Focal cryotherapy, despite having fewer complications, did not yield meaningful advantages over active surveillance at 10 yr. Active surveillance should be preferred to focal cryotherapy for these patients.