1
|
Hsieh PF, Naruse J, Yuzuriha S, Umemoto T, Huang CP, Shoji S. Combining Percentage Prostate-Specific Antigen Reduction and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Reduce Unnecessary Biopsy After Focal Therapy With High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Prostate Cancer. Int J Urol 2025; 32:584-590. [PMID: 39968685 DOI: 10.1111/iju.70013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2024] [Revised: 01/05/2025] [Accepted: 02/05/2025] [Indexed: 02/20/2025]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To test the feasibility of combining percentage prostate-specific antigen (PSA) reduction and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to determine the clinical scenario in which follow-up biopsy could be avoided after focal therapy (FT) with high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for prostate cancer. METHODS We reviewed 90 men treated with FT. Percentage PSA reduction was calculated by PSA nadir within postoperative 6 months. mpMRI was arranged at postoperative 6 months, followed by routine biopsy. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) on follow-up biopsy. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was done to assess the area under the curve (AUC). The diagnostic performance of percentage PSA reduction and mpMRI to predict csPC was also calculated. RESULTS Eight patients had csPC recurrence. Percentage PSA reduction and Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) ≥ 3 at postoperative 6 months were predictors for csPC (p = 0.033 and p = 0.02, respectively). The AUC of mpMRI, percentage PSA reduction, and their combination were 0.95, 0.816, and 0.982, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of PSA reduction < 70% and PI-RADS ≥ 3 to predict csPC were 87.5%, 69.5%, 21.9%, 98.3%, and 87.5%, 96.3%, 70%, 98.8%, respectively. Using the criteria of PSA reduction < 70% or PI-RADS ≥ 3 to determine biopsy candidates could avoid 60% of biopsies, without missing csPC. CONCLUSION For patients whose PSA reduction > 70% and PI-RADS < 3, we suggested avoiding routine biopsy at 6 months after FT with HIFU.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Po-Fan Hsieh
- Department of Urology, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan
- School of Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan
| | - Jun Naruse
- Department of Urology, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Soichiro Yuzuriha
- Department of Urology, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Tatsuya Umemoto
- Department of Urology, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Chi-Ping Huang
- Department of Urology, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan
- School of Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan
| | - Sunao Shoji
- Department of Urology, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Kanagawa, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ślusarczyk A, Gurwin A, Barnaś A, Ismail H, Miszczyk M, Zapała P, Przydacz M, Krajewski W, Antczak A, Życzkowski M, Nyk Ł, Marra G, Rivas JG, Kasivisvanathan V, Gandaglia G, Rouprêt M, Ploussard G, Shariat SF, Małkiewicz B, Radziszewski P, Drewa T, Sosnowski R, Rajwa P. Outcomes of Focal Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies. Eur Urol Oncol 2025:S2588-9311(25)00039-2. [PMID: 40251100 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2025.02.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/30/2024] [Revised: 01/07/2025] [Accepted: 02/11/2025] [Indexed: 04/20/2025]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Focal therapies (FTs) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) are recommended only within prospective registries or clinical trials. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to synthesize data from prospective trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of FTs in patients with clinically localized PCa. METHODS Systematic searches of the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases identified prospective studies reporting oncological outcomes of FTs in treatment-naïve, clinically localized PCa patients. The primary endpoint was biopsy-proven clinically significant PCa (csPCa; International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2) recurrence-free survival (csPCa RFS). The secondary endpoints included RFS, radical/systemic treatment-free survival, and adverse event (AE) rates. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS Fifty studies including 4615 patients treated with FTs were analyzed; of these 50 studies, 19 were on predominantly intermediate-risk (n = 2800), 16 on mixed low-/intermediate-risk (n = 990), and 15 on low-risk (n = 825) patients. Estimates of 12- and 24-mo csPCa RFS rates were 86% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82-89%) and 81% (95% CI: 74-86%), respectively. In the intermediate-risk subgroup, the 12-mo csPCa RFS rate was 79% (95% CI: 74-83%). Five-year radical and systemic treatment-free survival was 82% (95% CI: 75-88%). The pooled incidence of grade ≥3 AEs was 3% (95% CI: 2-5%). Pad-requiring urinary incontinence increased by 3% (95% CI: 0-6%), with 11% of patients developing new erectile dysfunction (95% CI: 4-18%). The median follow-up of 21 mo (interquartile range 12-34) and the use of surrogate endpoints constitute the major limitations. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS The primarily short-term data from prospective studies of FT in clinically localized PCa demonstrate moderate to high cancer control with a favorable safety profile.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aleksander Ślusarczyk
- Department of General, Oncological and Functional Urology, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
| | - Adam Gurwin
- University Center of Excellence in Urology, Department of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland
| | - Anna Barnaś
- Department and Clinic of Urology and Urologic Oncology, Poznan University of Medical Science, Poznan, Poland
| | - Hamza Ismail
- Department of General, Oncological and Functional Urology, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
| | - Marcin Miszczyk
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Collegium Medicum-Faculty of Medicine, WSB University, Dąbrowa Górnicza, Poland
| | - Piotr Zapała
- Department of General, Oncological and Functional Urology, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
| | - Mikołaj Przydacz
- Department of Urology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland
| | - Wojciech Krajewski
- University Center of Excellence in Urology, Department of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland
| | - Andrzej Antczak
- Department and Clinic of Urology and Urologic Oncology, Poznan University of Medical Science, Poznan, Poland
| | - Marcin Życzkowski
- Clinic of Urology, Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Opole, Opole, Poland
| | - Łukasz Nyk
- Second Department of Urology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, Warsaw, Poland
| | - Giancarlo Marra
- Department of Urology, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy; University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Juan G Rivas
- Department of Urology, Clinico San Carlos Hospital, Madrid, Spain
| | - Veeru Kasivisvanathan
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Giorgio Gandaglia
- Division of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Morgan Rouprêt
- Urology, GRC 5 Predictive Onco-Uro, AP-HP, Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital, Sorbonne University, Paris, France
| | | | - Shahrokh F Shariat
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan; Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA; Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Urology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Bartosz Małkiewicz
- University Center of Excellence in Urology, Department of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland
| | - Piotr Radziszewski
- Department of General, Oncological and Functional Urology, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
| | - Tomasz Drewa
- Department of General and Oncologic Urology, Antoni Jurasz University Hospital No. 1, Bydgoszcz, Poland
| | - Roman Sosnowski
- Department of Urology and Oncological Urology, Warmian-Masurian Cancer Center, Olsztyn, Poland
| | - Paweł Rajwa
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Second Department of Urology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, Warsaw, Poland; Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Bertelli E, Vizzi M, Legato M, Nicoletti R, Paolucci S, Ruzga R, Giovannelli S, Sessa F, Serni S, Masieri L, Campi R, Neri E, Agostini S, Miele V. The Use of PI-FAB Score in Evaluating mpMRI After Focal Ablation of Prostate Cancer: Is It Reliable? Inter-Reader Agreement in a Tertiary Care Referral University Hospital. Cancers (Basel) 2025; 17:1031. [PMID: 40149364 PMCID: PMC11940805 DOI: 10.3390/cancers17061031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/12/2025] [Revised: 03/15/2025] [Accepted: 03/18/2025] [Indexed: 03/29/2025] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE to assess the inter-reader agreement of the PIFAB (Prostate Imaging after Focal Ablation) score, a new MRI-based standardized system for evaluating post-focal therapy prostate mpMRI, among radiologists in a single large cohort of patients treated with focal therapy (HIFU) in a tertiary care referral University Hospital. METHODS In total, 68 consecutive patients who underwent HIFU were included in this single-center retrospective observational study. A total of 109 post-HIFU follow-up mpMRIs were evaluated by three radiologists with varying levels of experience (12, 8, and 3 years, respectively). All patients underwent their first follow-up mpMRI at 6 months post-treatment, with 30 patients receiving additional evaluations at 18 months and 11 at 30 months. RESULTS The patients had a mean age of 70.6 ± 8.31 years, a mean pre-treatment PSA (prostate-specific antigen) of 7.85 ± 1.21 ng/mL, and a mean post-treatment PSA of 4.64 ± 4.2 ng/mL. The inter-reader agreement for PI-FAB among the three radiologists showed a Gwet's AC2 value of 0.941 (95% confidence interval: 0.904-0.978, p < 0.0001). For the most experienced radiologist, at the 6-month follow-up 64 (94.14%) patients were scored as PI-FAB 1, 1 (1.47%) as PI-FAB 2, and 3 (4.41%) as PI-FAB 3. At the 18-month and 30-month follow-ups all patients were scored as PI-FAB 1 (no suspicion of recurrence). CONCLUSIONS Our study demonstrates excellent inter-reader agreement among radiologists with varying levels of experience, confirming that the PI-FAB score is highly reproducible when evaluating post-treatment mpMRI scans. The low rate of PI-FAB 2 and PI-FAB 3 lesions observed at the first follow-up, coupled with the absence of significant recurrence in subsequent evaluations, suggests that HIFU is a reliable technique for prostate cancer treatment in selected patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elena Bertelli
- Department of Radiology, Careggi University Hospital, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134 Florence, Italy; (M.V.); (M.L.); (R.R.); (S.G.); (S.A.); (V.M.)
| | - Michele Vizzi
- Department of Radiology, Careggi University Hospital, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134 Florence, Italy; (M.V.); (M.L.); (R.R.); (S.G.); (S.A.); (V.M.)
| | - Martina Legato
- Department of Radiology, Careggi University Hospital, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134 Florence, Italy; (M.V.); (M.L.); (R.R.); (S.G.); (S.A.); (V.M.)
| | - Rossella Nicoletti
- Unit of Urological Minimally Invasive, Robotic Surgery and Kidney Transplantation, Careggi University Hospital, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134 Florence, Italy; (R.N.); (F.S.); (S.S.); (L.M.); (R.C.)
| | - Sebastiano Paolucci
- Department of Health Physics, Careggi University Hospital, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134 Florence, Italy;
| | - Ron Ruzga
- Department of Radiology, Careggi University Hospital, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134 Florence, Italy; (M.V.); (M.L.); (R.R.); (S.G.); (S.A.); (V.M.)
| | - Simona Giovannelli
- Department of Radiology, Careggi University Hospital, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134 Florence, Italy; (M.V.); (M.L.); (R.R.); (S.G.); (S.A.); (V.M.)
| | - Francesco Sessa
- Unit of Urological Minimally Invasive, Robotic Surgery and Kidney Transplantation, Careggi University Hospital, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134 Florence, Italy; (R.N.); (F.S.); (S.S.); (L.M.); (R.C.)
| | - Sergio Serni
- Unit of Urological Minimally Invasive, Robotic Surgery and Kidney Transplantation, Careggi University Hospital, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134 Florence, Italy; (R.N.); (F.S.); (S.S.); (L.M.); (R.C.)
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy
| | - Lorenzo Masieri
- Unit of Urological Minimally Invasive, Robotic Surgery and Kidney Transplantation, Careggi University Hospital, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134 Florence, Italy; (R.N.); (F.S.); (S.S.); (L.M.); (R.C.)
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy
| | - Riccardo Campi
- Unit of Urological Minimally Invasive, Robotic Surgery and Kidney Transplantation, Careggi University Hospital, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134 Florence, Italy; (R.N.); (F.S.); (S.S.); (L.M.); (R.C.)
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy
| | - Emanuele Neri
- Academic Radiology, Department of Translational Research, University of Pisa, Via Roma, 67, 56126 Pisa, Italy;
| | - Simone Agostini
- Department of Radiology, Careggi University Hospital, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134 Florence, Italy; (M.V.); (M.L.); (R.R.); (S.G.); (S.A.); (V.M.)
| | - Vittorio Miele
- Department of Radiology, Careggi University Hospital, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134 Florence, Italy; (M.V.); (M.L.); (R.R.); (S.G.); (S.A.); (V.M.)
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Nicoletti R, Alberti A, Castellani D, Yee CH, Zhang K, Poon DMC, Chiu PKF, Campi R, Resta GR, Dibilio E, Pirola GM, Chiacchio G, Fuligni D, Brocca C, Giulioni C, De Stefano V, Serni S, Gauhar V, Ng CF, Gacci M, Teoh JYC. Functional outcomes and safety of focal therapy for prostate cancer: a systematic review on results and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2024; 27:614-622. [PMID: 37491432 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-023-00698-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/14/2023] [Revised: 06/28/2023] [Accepted: 07/11/2023] [Indexed: 07/27/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Focal therapy (FT) is a promising alternative with curative intent for Low- to Intermediate-risk localized Prostate Cancer (PCa), claiming better functional outcomes and safety profile than standard whole-gland treatments. Ten different FT modalities have been described in the literature. The objective of our narrative review is to evaluate the safety profile and functional outcomes of these different modalities and the current most used tools of assessment for those outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS Literature search was performed on 21st February 2023 using PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA). Articles reporting whole-gland treatments were excluded. All articles reporting functional outcomes were included. RESULTS One-hundred-seven studies, reporting data on 6933 patients, were included (26 on High Intensity Focal Ultrasound, 22 on Focal Cryotherapy, 14 on Irreversible Electroporation, 11 on Focal brachytherapy, 10 on Focal Laser Ablation, 8 on Photodynamic Therapy, 3 on Microwave ablation, 3 on Robotic Partial Prostatectomy, 2 on bipolar Radio Frequency Ablation, 1 on Prostatic Artery Embolization, and 7 studies comparing different FTs). Post-operative pad-free rate ranged between 92.3-100%. Greater heterogeneity exists considering the Change in Erectile Function, with Changing in Erectile function- rates ranging between 0-94.4% (Cryotherapy). The most used Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) were the International Prostate Symptom Score and the International Index of Erectile Function for incontinence/urinary function and potency, respectively. The most common reported complications were hematuria, infections, and urethral strictures, with rates widely ranging among different treatments. The Clavien-Dindo Classification was the most used (40/88 papers) to describe adverse events. CONCLUSION FT is a promising treatment for localized PCa, achieving excellent results in terms of safety and functional outcomes. There is a wide heterogeneity in the definition of PROMS and time of collection between studies. High quality comparative studies with standard treatments are needed to reinforce these findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rossella Nicoletti
- Unit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, University of Florence, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy
- S.H.Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Science, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Andrea Alberti
- Unit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, University of Florence, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Science, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Daniele Castellani
- Urology Division, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria delle Marche, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
| | - Chi Hang Yee
- S.H.Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Kai Zhang
- Department of Urology, Beijing United Family Hospital and Clinics, 100015, Beijing, China
| | - Darren M C Poon
- Comprehensive Oncology Centre, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Peter Ka-Fung Chiu
- S.H.Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Riccardo Campi
- Unit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, University of Florence, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Science, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Giulio Raffaele Resta
- Unit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, University of Florence, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Science, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Edoardo Dibilio
- Unit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, University of Florence, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Science, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | | | - Giuseppe Chiacchio
- Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, School of Urology, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
| | - Demetra Fuligni
- Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, School of Urology, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
| | - Carlo Brocca
- Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, School of Urology, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
| | - Carlo Giulioni
- Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, School of Urology, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
| | - Virgilio De Stefano
- Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, School of Urology, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
| | - Sergio Serni
- Unit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, University of Florence, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Science, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Vineet Gauhar
- Ng Teng Fong General Hospital (NUHS), Singapore, Singapore
| | - Chi Fai Ng
- S.H.Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Mauro Gacci
- Unit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, University of Florence, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Science, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Jeremy Yuen Chun Teoh
- S.H.Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Tay KJ, Fong KY, Stabile A, Dominguez-Escrig JL, Ukimura O, Rodriguez-Sanchez L, Blana A, Becher E, Laguna MP. Established focal therapy-HIFU, IRE, or cryotherapy-where are we now?-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2024:10.1038/s41391-024-00911-2. [PMID: 39468217 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-024-00911-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2024] [Revised: 10/11/2024] [Accepted: 10/15/2024] [Indexed: 10/30/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Focal Therapy (FT) is a treatment option for the treatment of limited volume clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). We aim to systematically review outcomes of established FT modalities to assess the contemporary baseline and identify gaps in evidence that will aid in further trial and study design. METHODS We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all primary studies reporting outcomes of FT using cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), and irreversible electroporation (IRE). We described patient inclusion criteria, selection tools, treatment parameters, and surveillance protocols, and pooled overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), biochemical progression (BP), biopsy, secondary treatment, sexual, and urinary function outcomes. Composite failure was defined as salvage whole gland ablation, radical treatment, hormonal therapy or transition to watchful waiting. SYNTHESIS We identified 49 unique cohorts of men undergoing FT between 2008 and 2024 (21 cryotherapy, 20 HIFU, and 8 IRE). Median follow-up ranged from 6 to 63 months. Pooled OS was 98.0%, CSS 99.3%, and MFS 98.5%. Pooled BP was 9.4%/year. Biopsy was mandated post-FT within 24 months in 36/49 (73.5%) cohorts, with pooled csPCa (GG ≥ 2) rates of 22.2% overall, 8.9% infield, and 12.3% outfield. The pooled rate of secondary FT was 5.0%, radical treatment 10.5%, and composite failure 14.1%. Of 35 studies reporting sexual function, 45.7% reported a low, 48.6% moderate, and 5.7% severe impact. For 34 cohorts reporting urinary function, 97.1% reported a low impact. No differences were noted between cryotherapy, HIFU, or IRE in any of the outcomes. CONCLUSION FT with cryotherapy, HIFU, and IRE is associated with good short-intermediate term oncological and functional outcomes. However, outcome reporting is heterogeneous and often incomplete. Long-term follow-up and standardized reporting are required to better define and report FT outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kae Jack Tay
- Singapore General Hospital, Singapore; Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
| | - Khi Yung Fong
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Armando Stabile
- Unit of Urology, Division of Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Osamu Ukimura
- Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan
| | | | | | | | - M Pilar Laguna
- Istanbul Medipol University Medical School, Department of Urology, Medipol Mega, Istanbul, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Séguier D, Puech P, Barret E, Leroy X, Labreuche J, Penna RR, Ploussard G, Villers A, Olivier J. MRI accuracy for recurrence after partial gland ablation with HIFU for localized prostate cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2024:10.1038/s41391-024-00885-1. [PMID: 39256551 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-024-00885-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2024] [Accepted: 08/15/2024] [Indexed: 09/12/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prostate cancer remains the most frequently diagnosed cancer among men. High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) has emerged as a thermal ablative technique for partial-gland-ablation (PGA), aiming to minimize collateral damage while maximizing tumor control. Monitoring after HIFU PGA relies on serial PSA testing, multiparametric-MRI, and biopsies. The diagnostic accuracy of MRI for clinically-significant cancer(csPCa) recurrence is challenging. OBJECTIVE This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the accuracy of MRI in detecting early recurrence of localized prostate cancer following HIFU PGA. METHODS Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted until May 8th 2024 using MEDLINE and Scopus. The inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials and cohort studies involving men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who had as primary treatment HIFU PGA. The primary outcome measures included the sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value (PPV), and negative-predictive value (NPV) of MRI for csPCa(ISUP ≥ 2) based on biopsy results. We pooled data from studies with sufficient csPCa and csPCa-free patients (≥5) post HIFU for statistical analysis. RESULTS Fifteen studies meet the inclusion criteria, encompassing 1093 patients and 12 studies were eligible for meta-analysis. MRI sensitivity in detecting clinically-significant prostate cancer (csPCa) recurrence post HIFU PGA varied widely (0-89%), with a pooled sensitivity of 0.52 (95% CI:0.36-0.68). Specificity ranged from 44% to 100%, with a pooled specificity of 0.81 (95% CI:0.68-0.91). The pooled NPV was 0.82 (95% CI:0.72-0.90), and the pooled PPV was 0.50 (95% CI:0.35-0.65). Three studies reported in-field diagnostic performance with sensitivities ranging from 0.42 to 0.80 and specificities from 0.45 to 0.97. CONCLUSION MRI accuracy for clinically-significant recurrence after partial gland ablation with HIFU for localized prostate cancer shows low diagnostic performance in the treated lobe with pooled sensitivity of 0.52 (95% CI:0.36-0.68) and specificity of 0.81 (95% CI:0.68-0.91). Limits of this review include the low number of studies reporting about site of recurrence in or out of the treated lobe.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Denis Séguier
- Urology Department, Claude Huriez Hospital, CHU Lille, Lille, France.
- University Lille, CNRS, INSERM, CHU Lille, Institut Pasteur de Lille, UMR9020-U1277-CANTHER-Cancer Heterogeneity Plasticity and Resistance to Therapies, F-59000, Lille, France.
| | - Philippe Puech
- Radiology Department, Claude Huriez Hospital, CHU Lille, Lille, France
| | - Eric Barret
- Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France
| | - Xavier Leroy
- University Lille, CNRS, INSERM, CHU Lille, Institut Pasteur de Lille, UMR9020-U1277-CANTHER-Cancer Heterogeneity Plasticity and Resistance to Therapies, F-59000, Lille, France
- Department of Pathology, CHU Lille, Université de Lille, Lille, France
| | | | - Raphael Renard Penna
- AP-HP, Radiology, Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital, Sorbonne University, Paris, France
| | - Guillaume Ploussard
- Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hôpital, Quint Fonsegrives, Paris, France
| | - Arnauld Villers
- Urology Department, Claude Huriez Hospital, CHU Lille, Lille, France
- University Lille, CNRS, INSERM, CHU Lille, Institut Pasteur de Lille, UMR9020-U1277-CANTHER-Cancer Heterogeneity Plasticity and Resistance to Therapies, F-59000, Lille, France
| | - Jonathan Olivier
- Urology Department, Claude Huriez Hospital, CHU Lille, Lille, France
- University Lille, CNRS, INSERM, CHU Lille, Institut Pasteur de Lille, UMR9020-U1277-CANTHER-Cancer Heterogeneity Plasticity and Resistance to Therapies, F-59000, Lille, France
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Peretsman SJ, Emberton M, Fleshner N, Shoji S, Bahler CD, Miller LE. High-intensity focused ultrasound with visually directed power adjustment for focal treatment of localized prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol 2024; 42:175. [PMID: 38507093 PMCID: PMC10954869 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-04840-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2023] [Accepted: 01/16/2024] [Indexed: 03/22/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To characterize patient outcomes following visually directed high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for focal treatment of localized prostate cancer. METHODS We performed a systematic review of cancer-control outcomes and complication rates among men with localized prostate cancer treated with visually directed focal HIFU. Study outcomes were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis model. RESULTS A total of 8 observational studies with 1,819 patients (median age 67 years; prostate-specific antigen 7.1 mg/ml; prostate volume 36 ml) followed over a median of 24 months were included. The mean prostate-specific antigen nadir following visually directed focal HIFU was 2.2 ng/ml (95% CI 0.9-3.5 ng/ml), achieved after a median of 6 months post-treatment. A clinically significant positive biopsy was identified in 19.8% (95% CI 12.4-28.3%) of cases. Salvage treatment rates were 16.2% (95% CI 9.7-23.8%) for focal- or whole-gland treatment, and 8.6% (95% CI 6.1-11.5%) for whole-gland treatment. Complication rates were 16.7% (95% CI 9.9-24.6%) for de novo erectile dysfunction, 6.2% (95% CI 0.0-19.0%) for urinary retention, 3.0% (95% CI 2.1-3.9%) for urinary tract infection, 1.9% (95% CI 0.1-5.3%) for urinary incontinence, and 0.1% (95% CI 0.0-1.4%) for bowel injury. CONCLUSION Limited evidence from eight observational studies demonstrated that visually directed HIFU for focal treatment of localized prostate cancer was associated with a relatively low risk of complications and acceptable cancer control over medium-term follow-up. Comparative, long-term safety and effectiveness results with visually directed focal HIFU are lacking.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Mark Emberton
- Interventional Oncology, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Neil Fleshner
- Department of Surgical Oncology Urology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | - Sunao Shoji
- Department of Urology, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Japan
| | - Clinton D Bahler
- Department of Urology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | - Larry E Miller
- Miller Scientific, 3101 Browns Mill Road, Ste 6, #311, Johnson City, TN, 37604, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Leong KX, Sharma D, Czarnota GJ. Focused Ultrasound and Ultrasound Stimulated Microbubbles in Radiotherapy Enhancement for Cancer Treatment. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2023; 22:15330338231176376. [PMID: 37192751 DOI: 10.1177/15330338231176376] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/18/2023] Open
Abstract
Radiation therapy (RT) has been the standard of care for treating a multitude of cancer types. However, ionizing radiation has adverse short and long-term side effects which have resulted in treatment complications for decades. Thus, advances in enhancing the effects of RT have been the primary focus of research in radiation oncology. To avoid the usage of high radiation doses, treatment modalities such as high-intensity focused ultrasound can be implemented to reduce the radiation doses required to destroy cancer cells. In the past few years, the use of focused ultrasound (FUS) has demonstrated immense success in a number of applications as it capitalizes on spatial specificity. It allows ultrasound energy to be delivered to a targeted focal area without harming the surrounding tissue. FUS combined with RT has specifically demonstrated experimental evidence in its application resulting in enhanced cell death and tumor cure. Ultrasound-stimulated microbubbles have recently proved to be a novel way of enhancing RT as a radioenhancing agent on its own, or as a delivery vector for radiosensitizing agents such as oxygen. In this mini-review article, we discuss the bio-effects of FUS and RT in various preclinical models and highlight the applicability of this combined therapy in clinical settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kai Xuan Leong
- Physical Sciences, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Deepa Sharma
- Physical Sciences, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Gregory J Czarnota
- Physical Sciences, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Cambronero S, Dupré A, Mastier C, Melodelima D. Non-invasive High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Treatment of Liver Tissues in an In Vivo Porcine Model: Fast, Large and Safe Ablations Using a Toroidal Transducer. ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE & BIOLOGY 2023; 49:212-224. [PMID: 36441030 DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2022.08.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2022] [Revised: 07/30/2022] [Accepted: 08/28/2022] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Abstract
A toroidal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) transducer was used to non-invasively treat liver tissues in vivo in a pig model. The transducer was divided into 32 concentric rings with equal surface areas operating at 2.5 MHz. First, attenuation of skin, fat, muscle and liver tissues was measured in fresh animal samples to adjust the energy delivered to the focal zone. Then, 8 animals were included in the present protocol and placed in a dorsal decubitus proclive position at an angle of 15°. The device was held by hand, and sonications were performed during apnea. Two thermal HIFU lesions were created in 40 s in each animal. The average abdominal wall thickness was 14.8 ± 1.3 mm (12.5-17.6 mm). The longest and shortest axes of the HIFU ablations were 20.9 ± 6.3 mm (14.0-33.7 mm) and 14.2 ± 5.5 mm (7.0-22.0 mm), respectively. All HIFU lesions were visible on sonograms. The correlation between the dimensions of the HIFU lesions observed on sonograms and those obtained during gross examination was r = 0.84. Creating large and fast ablations with reliable ultrasound imaging guidance in the liver using this handheld device may represent a new therapeutic option for patients with liver tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Aurélien Dupré
- LabTAU, INSERM, Centre Léon Bérard, Université Lyon, Lyon, France; Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
| | | | - David Melodelima
- LabTAU, INSERM, Centre Léon Bérard, Université Lyon, Lyon, France
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Ahn H, Hwang SI, Lee HJ, Kim SY, Cho JY, Lee H, Hong SK, Byun SS, Kim TM. Diagnostic Performance of MRI for Prediction of Recurrent Prostate Cancer after High-intensity Focused Ultrasound: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Prostate Int 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.prnil.2022.12.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
|
11
|
Diagnostic value of multiparametric MRI in detecting residual or recurrent prostate cancer after high-intensity focused ultrasound. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2022:10.1038/s41391-022-00531-8. [DOI: 10.1038/s41391-022-00531-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2021] [Revised: 03/04/2022] [Accepted: 03/23/2022] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
|