Salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy following focal ablation with irreversible electroporation: feasibility, oncological and functional outcomes

Irreversible electroporation as a focal therapy for localized prostate cancer: A systematic review

Introduction

Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a new and promising focal therapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. In this systematic review, we summarize the literature on IRE for prostate cancer published over the last decade.

Methods

PubMed and EMBASE were searched with the end date of May 2023 to find relevant publications on prostate cancer ablation using IRE. Original studies with focal IRE as the primary curative treatment which reported on functional or oncological outcomes were included. The bibliography of relevant studies was also scanned to identify suitable articles.

Results

A total of 14 studies reporting on 899 patients treated with IRE for localized prostate cancer were included. Of all the studies reviewed, 77% reported on recurrence within the zone of ablation, and it ranged from 0% to 38.9% for in-field and 3.6% to 28% for out-of-field recurrence. Although, a standardised follow-up protocol was not followed, all the studies employed serial prostate-specific antigen monitoring, a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, and a biopsy (6-12 months post-treatment). Across all the studies, 58% reported that the urinary continence returned to the pretreatment levels and 25% reported a minor decrease in the continence from the baseline at 12-months of follow-up. Erections sufficient for intercourse varied from 44% to 75% at the baseline to 55% to 100% at 12-months of follow-up across all the studies.

Conclusion

IRE, as a focal therapy, shows promising results with minimal complications and reasonably effective oncological control, but the data comparing it to the standard of care is still lacking. Future research should focus on randomized definitive comparisons between IRE, radical prostatectomy, and radiation therapy.

Salvage Radical Prostatectomy for Recurrent Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review (French ccAFU)

The aim of this study was to systematically review the current evidence regarding the oncological and functional outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) for recurrent prostate cancer. A systematic review was conducted throughout September 2022 using the PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Embase databases. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to identify eligible studies. A total of 55 studies (3836 patients) met our eligibility criteria. The vast majority of men included had radiation therapy (including brachytherapy) as their first-line treatment (n = 3240, 84%). Other first-line treatments included HIFU (n = 338, 9%), electroporation (n = 59, 2%), proton beam therapy (n = 54, 1.5%), cryotherapy (n = 34, 1%), focal vascular targeted photodynamic therapy (n = 22, 0.6%), and transurethral ultrasound ablation (n = 19, 0.5%). Median preoperative PSA, at the time of recurrence, ranged from 1.5 to 14.4 ng/mL. The surgical approach was open in 2300 (60%) cases, robotic in 1465 (38%) cases, and laparoscopic in 71 (2%) cases. Since 2019, there has been a clear increase in robotic versus conventional surgery (1245 versus 525 cases, respectively). The median operative time and blood loss ranged from 80 to 297 min and 75 to 914 mL, respectively. Concomitant lymph node dissection was performed in 2587 cases (79%). The overall complication rate was 34%, with a majority of Clavien grade I or II complications. Clavien ≥ 3 complications ranged from 0 to 64%. Positive surgical margins were noted in 792 cases (32%). The median follow-up ranged from 4.6 to 94 months. Biochemical recurrence after sRP ranged from 8% to 51.5% at 12 months, from 0% to 66% at 22 months, and from 48% to 59% at 60 months. The specific and overall survival rates ranged from 13.4 to 98% and 62 to 100% at 5 years, respectively. Urinary continence was maintained in 52.1% of cases. sRP demonstrated acceptable oncological outcomes. These results, after sRP, are influenced by several factors, and above all by pre-treatment assessment, including imaging, with the development of mpMRI and metabolic imaging. Our results demonstrated that SRP can be considered a suitable treatment option for selected patients, but the level of evidence remains low.

Outcomes of Salvage Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy in the last decade: systematic review and perspectives of referral centers

PURPOSE

Salvage robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (S-RARP) has gained prominence in recent years for treating patients with cancer recurrence following non-surgical treatments of Prostate Cancer. We conducted a systematic literature review to evaluate the role and outcomes of S-RARP over the past decade.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review was conducted, encompassing articles published between January 1st, 2013, and June 1st, 2023, on S-RARP outcomes. Articles were screened according to PRISMA guidelines, resulting in 33 selected studies. Data were extracted, including patient demographics, operative times, complications, functional outcomes, and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 1,630 patients from 33 studies, radiotherapy was the most common primary treatment (42%). Operative times ranged from 110 to 303 minutes, with estimated blood loss between 50 to 745 mL. Intraoperative complications occurred in 0 to 9% of cases, while postoperative complications ranged from 0 to 90% (Clavien 1-5). Continence rates varied (from 0 to 100%), and potency rates ranged from 0 to 66.7%. Positive surgical margins were reported up to 65.6%, and biochemical recurrence ranged from 0 to 57%.

CONCLUSION

Salvage robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with cancer recurrence after previous prostate cancer treatment is safe and feasible. The literature is based on retrospective studies with inherent limitations describing low rates of intraoperative complications and small blood loss. However, potency and continence rates are largely reduced compared to the primary RARP series, despite the type of the primary treatment. Better-designed studies to assess the long-term outcomes and individually specify each primary therapy impact on the salvage treatment are still needed. Future articles should be more specific and provide more details regarding the previous therapies and S-RARP surgical techniques.

Guidelines of guidelines: focal therapy for prostate cancer, is it time for consensus?

OBJECTIVE

To provide a summary and discussion of international guidelines, position statements and consensus statements in relation to focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

The European Association of Urology-European Association of Nuclear Medicine-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology-European Society of Urogential Radiology-International Society of Urological Pathology-International Society of Geriatric Oncology and American Urological Association-American Society for Radiation Oncology-Society of Urologic Oncology guidelines were interrogated for recommendations for FT. PubMed and Ovid Medline were searched for consensus statements. Only studies in English since 2015 were included. Reference lists of the included articles were also interrogated and a manual search for studies was also performed.

RESULTS

Our results showed a lack of long-term randomised data for FT. International Urological guidelines emphasised the need for more high-quality clinical trials with robust oncological and toxicity outcomes. Consensus and positions statements were heterogenous.

CONCLUSION

A globally accepted guideline for FT planning, technique and follow-up are still yet to be determined. Well-designed studies with long-term follow-up and robust clinical and toxicity endpoints are needed to improve our understanding of FT and create uniform guidelines to streamline management and follow-up.

Median 5-year outcomes of primary focal irreversible electroporation for localised prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate longer-term oncological and functional outcomes of focal irreversible electroporation (IRE) as primary treatment for localised clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) at a median follow-up of 5 years (up to 10 years).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients that underwent focal IRE as primary treatment for localised PCa between February 2013 and August 2021 with a minimum 12 months of follow-up were analysed. Follow-up included 6-month magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and standardised transperineal saturation template ± targeted biopsies at 12 months, and further biopsies in the case of clinical suspicion on serial imaging and/or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. Failure-free survival (FFS) was defined as no progression to radical treatment or nodal/distant disease. Local recurrence was defined as any International Society of Urological Pathology Grade of ≥2 on biopsy.

RESULTS

A total of 229 patients were analysed with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) follow-up of 60 (40-80) months. The median (IQR) age was 68 (64-74) years, the median (IQR) PSA level was 5.9 (4.1-8.2) ng/mL, and 86% harboured intermediate-risk disease and 7% high-risk disease. In all, 38 patients progressed to radical treatment (17%), at a median (IQR) of 35 (17-53) months after IRE. Kaplan-Meier FFS rates were 91% at 3 years, 84% at 5 years and 69% at 8 years. Metastasis-free survival was 99.6% (228/229), PCa-specific and overall survival were 100% (229/229). Residual csPCa was found in 24% (45/190) during follow-up biopsy and MRI showed a complete ablation in 82% (186/226). Short-term urinary continence was preserved (98%, three of 144 at baseline, 99%, one of 131 at 12 months) and erections sufficient for intercourse decreased by 13% compared to baseline (71% to 58%).

CONCLUSION

Longer-term follow-up confirms our earlier findings that focal IRE provides acceptable local and distant oncological control in selected men with less urinary and sexual toxicity than radical treatment. Long-term follow-up and external validation of these findings, is required to establish this new treatment paradigm as a valid treatment option.

Complications Risk Assessment and Imaging Findings of Thermal Ablation Treatment in Liver Cancers: What the Radiologist Should Expect

One of the major fields of application of ablation treatment is liver tumors. With respect to HCC, ablation treatments are considered as upfront treatments in patients with early-stage disease, while in colorectal liver metastases (CLM), they can be employed as an upfront treatment or in association with surgical resection. The main prognostic feature of ablation is the tumor size, since the goal of the treatment is the necrosis of all viable tumor tissue with an adequate tumor-free margin. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) are the most employed ablation techniques. Ablation therapies in HCC and liver metastases have presented a challenge to radiologists, who need to assess response to determine complication-related treatment. Complications, defined as any unexpected variation from a procedural course, and adverse events, defined as any actual or potential injury related to the treatment, could occur either during the procedure or afterwards. To date, RFA and MWA have shown no statistically significant differences in mortality rates or major or minor complications. To reduce the rate of major complications, patient selection and risk assessment are essential. To determine the right cost-benefit ratio for the ablation method to be used, it is necessary to identify patients at high risk of infections, coagulation disorders and previous abdominal surgery interventions. Based on risk assessment, during the procedure as part of surveillance, the radiologists should pay attention to several complications, such as vascular, biliary, mechanical and infectious. Multiphase CT is an imaging tool chosen in emergency settings. The radiologist should report technical success, treatment efficacy, and complications. The complications should be assessed according to well-defined classification systems, and these complications should be categorized consistently according to severity and time of occurrence.