Focal Therapy in Primary Localised Prostate Cancer: The European Association of Urology Position in 2018

Triggers and oncologic outcome of salvage radical prostatectomy, salvage radiotherapy and active surveillance after focal therapy of prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Due to the tissue preserving approach of focal therapy (FT), local cancer relapse can occur. Uncertainty exists regarding triggers and outcome of salvage strategies.

METHODS

Patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer (PCa) after FT for localized PCa from 2011 to 2020 at eight tertiary referral hospitals in Germany that underwent salvage radical prostatectomy (S-RP), salvage radiotherapy (S-RT) or active surveillance (AS) were reported. Prostate specific antigen (PSA) changes, suspicious lesions on mpMRI and histopathological findings on biopsy were analyzed. A multivariable regression model was created for adverse pathological findings (APF) at S-RP specimen. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to determine oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 90 men were included. Cancer relapse after FT was detected at a median of 12 months (IQR 9-16). Of 50 men initially under AS 13 received S-RP or S-RT. In total, 44 men underwent S-RP and 13 S-RT. At cancer relapse 17 men (38.6%) in the S-RP group [S-RT n = 4 (30.8%); AS n = 3 (6%)] had ISUP > 2. APF (pT ≥ 3, ISUP ≥ 3, pN + or R1) were observed in 23 men (52.3%). A higher ISUP on biopsy was associated with APF [p = 0.006 (HR 2.32, 97.5% CI 1.35-4.59)] on univariable analysis. Progression-free survival was 80.4% after S-RP and 100% after S-RT at 3 years. Secondary therapy-free survival was 41.7% at 3 years in men undergoing AS. Metastasis-free survival was 80% at 5 years for the whole cohort.

CONCLUSION

With early detection of cancer relapse after FT S-RP and S-RT provide sufficient oncologic control at short to intermediate follow-up. After AS, a high secondary-therapy rate was observed.

Vascular-targeted Photodynamic Therapy in Unilateral Low-risk Prostate Cancer in Germany: 2-yr Single-centre Experience in a Real-world Setting Compared with Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy (VTP) is an approved treatment option for unilateral low-risk prostate cancer (PCa).

OBJECTIVE

Herein, we report our initial experience of patients treated by VTP. We compared short-term functional and oncological outcomes with those of a consecutive cohort of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) for unilateral low-risk PCa.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients with unilateral low-risk PCa undergoing VTP (n = 41) and RP (n = 49) were evaluated in a real-world setting.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Oncological outcome after VTP was measured by magnetic resonance imaging-based rebiopsy at 12 and 24 mo. Functional outcome after 1 yr was investigated by International Index of Erectile Function 5 and International Prostate Symptom Score questionnaires. Continence was evaluated by pad use.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

In 12- and 24-mo control biopsy (n = 22) after VTP, 45% of VTP patients showed no evidence of PCa. Both low- and intermediate-risk PCa were detected in 27% of patients. None of the RP patients had a PCa recurrence. Of VTP and RP patients, 71% and 30%, respectively, preserved erectile function. Of VTP patients, 88% had no bladder outlet obstruction. Of RP patients, 96% and 4% used zero to one and two or more pads per day, respectively. Data acquisition was performed outside of a clinical trial. The short-term follow-up and the small number of rebiopsied patients have to be considered.

CONCLUSIONS

VTP is a promising treatment option in unilateral low-risk PCa presenting a lower complication profile than RP in a real-world setting. However, recurrence and progression after VTP are common in this low-risk PCa cohort, and have to be discussed critically with patients who wish VTP instead of active surveillance. Therefore, a rigorous surveillance strategy with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and control biopsy is required.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy (VTP) is a promising therapy option in patients with unilateral low-risk prostate cancer. However, tumour recurrence has to be taken into account. Noninferiority of VTP to standard curative treatment options still has to be confirmed.

Does mpMRI guidance improve HIFU partial gland ablation compared to conventional ultrasound guidance? Early functional outcomes and complications from a single center

Background

Focal therapy (FT) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) treatment is raising interest. New technological mpMRI-US guided FT devices have never been compared with the previous generation of ultrasound-only guided devices.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively analyzed prospectively recorded data of men undergoing FT for localized low- or intermediate-risk PCa with US- (Ablatherm®-2009 to 2014) or mpMRI-US (Focal One®-from 2014) guided HIFU. Follow-up visits and data were collected using internationally validated questionnaires at 1, 2, 3, 6 and 12 months.

Results

We included n=88 US-guided FT HIFU and n=52 mpMRI-US guided FT HIFU respectively. No major baseline differences were present except higher rates of Gleason 3+4 for the mpMRI-US group. No major differences were present in hospital stay (p=0.1), catheterization time (p=0.5) and complications (p=0.2) although these tended to be lower in the mpMRI-US group (6.8% versus 13.2% US FT group). At 3 months mpMRI-US guided HIFU had significantly lower urine leak (5.1% vs. 15.9%, p=0.04) and a lower drop in IIEF scores (2 vs. 4.2, p=0.07). Of those undergoing 12-months control biopsy in the mpMRI-US-guided HIFU group, 26% had residual cancer in the treated lobe.

Conclusion

HIFU FT guided by MRI-US fusion may allow improved functional outcomes and fewer complications compared to US- guided HIFU FT alone. Further analysis is needed to confirm benefits of mpMRI implementation at a longer follow-up and on a larger cohort of patients.

Oncological Long-term Outcome After Whole-gland High-intensity Focused Ultrasound for Prostate Cancer-21-yr Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Owing to the morbidity of established radical treatment options for prostate cancer, alternative whole-gland and focal treatment strategies have emerged. High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is one of the most studied sources for tissue ablation and has been used since the 1990s.

OBJECTIVE

To provide 21-yr oncological long-term follow-up data of an unselected series of patients who underwent whole-gland HIFU for nonmetastatic prostate cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 674 patients were treated between November 1997 and November 2012 in one university center.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The oncological outcome was assessed by biopsy failure-free survival (BFFS), salvage treatment-free survival (STFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS). Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were performed to estimate the prognostic relevance of clinical variables.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

In total, 560 patients were included into the evaluation and the median follow-up was 15.1 yr, with a range up to 21.4 yr. At 15 yr, CSS rates for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients were 95%, 89%, and 65%, respectively; MFS, STFS-1 (salvage treatment other than HIFU), STFS-2 (salvage treatment including repeat HIFU), and BFFS rates were 91%, 85%, and 58%; 77%, 63%, and 29%; 67%, 52%, and 28%; and 82%, 73%, and 47%, respectively. Preoperative high-risk category was an independent predictor of inferior OS, CSS, MFS, STFS, and BFFS.

CONCLUSIONS

Although whole-gland HIFU achieved good long-term cancer control in low- and intermediate-risk patients, high-risk patients should not be treated routinely by HIFU. Intermediate-risk patients achieve high CSS and MFS rates, but a relevant salvage treatment rate has to be reckoned with. Long-term data after whole-gland therapy might help derive implications for focal treatment sources and patient selection.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Long-term data after whole-gland high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) therapy are crucial to prove its oncological efficacy, and may help derive implications for focal treatment strategies and patient selection. In this context, whole-gland HIFU achieved good long-term cancer control up to 21 yr in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Owing to considerably inferior long-term cancer control, it should not routinely be used in high-risk PCa patients.

Focal Brachytherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Midterm Outcomes

PURPOSE

Focal brachytherapy (F-BT) is a suitable technique for focal therapy in localized prostate cancer. It has the ability to adapt the seed implantation to the volume and location of the tumor. The aim of this study was to assess F-BT oncologic, functional, and toxicity midterm outcomes in men who underwent prostate cancer treatment.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The study included 39 men with low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with F-BT between 2010 and 2015. The dose prescription was 145 Gy. Failure was defined as the presence of any residual prostate cancer in the treated area. The primary and secondary endpoints were the F-BT oncologic and functional outcomes, respectively. A 2-sided P value < .05 indicated statistical significance.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time was 65 months (range, 43-104 months). After 24 months, 34 patients underwent control biopsies and 5 patients refused. The biopsies were negative in 27 cases (79%) and positive in 7 cases (21%), all outside the volume treated. Biochemical relapse-free survival at 5 years, disease-free survival, and overall survival were 96.8% ± 0.032%, 79.5% ± 0.076%, and 100%, respectively. The mean International Prostate Symptom Score at 2 months was significantly higher than initially (P = .0003), with no significant difference later. No late urinary, sexual, or rectal toxicity was observed. Salvage treatment was possible with good tolerance at 3.4 years of follow-up. Limitations of this study include the retrospective nature and lack of randomization.

CONCLUSIONS

F-BT is a safe and effective treatment for selected patients presenting with low- or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer.

Feasibility and early toxicity of focal or partial brachytherapy in prostate cancer patients

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare short-term oncologic outcomes and toxicity of focal or partial low-dose-rate brachytherapy (focal/partial LDR-BT) with whole gland low-dose-rate brachytherapy (whole LDR-BT) in localized prostate cancer patients.

Material and methods

Medical records of eligible patients who underwent focal/partial LDR-BT and whole LDR-BT between 2015 and 2017 at our institution were reviewed retrospectively. Clinical characteristics and pathologic outcomes were compared between focal/partial LDR-BT group and whole LDR-BT group. Biochemical recurrence-free survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method and difference between two groups was assessed with log-rank test. Genitourinary and rectal toxicity were also evaluated between the two groups.

Results

Of the 60 patients analyzed, 30 focal/partial LDR-BT patients and 30 whole LDR-BT brachytherapy patients were included. Relative to the whole LDR-BT group, the focal/partial LDR-BT group had significantly higher initial PSA level (p = 0.002), smaller number of implanted seeds (p < 0.001), and shorter follow-up duration (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to prostate volume, biopsy Gleason score, and risk group stratification. The 3-year biochemical recurrence-free survival estimates for focal/partial LDR-BT group and whole LDR-BT group were 91.8% and 89.6%, respectively, which was not significantly different (p = 0.554). Genitourinary symptoms were significantly worse in whole LDR-BT group than in focal/partial LDR-BT group. The incidence of rectal toxicity was similar between two groups.

Conclusions

Our findings indicate that the focal/partial LDR-BT is comparable to the whole LDR-BT with respect to short-term biochemical recurrence and toxicities.

Early Results of Unilateral Prostatic Artery Embolization as a Focal Therapy in Patients with Prostate Cancer under Active Surveillance: Cancer Prostate Embolisation, a Pilot Study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the feasibility of prostatic artery embolization in patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PC) under active surveillance (AS).

METHODS

This monocentric prospective pilot study, running from June 2018 to June 2019, included 10 patients with low-risk PC under AS, median age 72 years (range, 62-77 years), with a unilateral focal lesion visible on magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System v2 score ≥3/5 confirmed by multiparametric MR imaging-targeted biopsy and Gleason score 6. The patients underwent unilateral prostatic artery embolization with 300-500 μm Embospheres in the affected prostatic lobe. The primary endpoint was technical feasibility (prostate and no off-target ischemia in the imaging). The secondary endpoints included safety, negative biopsies/MR imaging response/functional outcomes at 6 months, and oncologic efficacy at 1 year.

RESULTS

Embolization was successfully achieved in all patients; prostate ischemia was confirmed on multiparametric MR imaging, and no off-target ischemia was reported. No major complications were reported. Four patients (40%) presented with both negative targeted and systematic biopsies at 6 months. No lesions were seen on the MR imaging in 30% of patients. The mean International Prostate Symptom Score and International Index of Erectile Function score were 7 and 19 and 5 and 20 at baseline and 6 months, respectively, with no significant difference. Nine patients (90%) were still under AS at 1 year. One patient (10%) had PC progression outside the target lesion and was switched over to curative radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostatic artery embolization is feasible and appears safe for prostate cancer patients under AS, with no impact on erectile function or continence status. These results justify the pursuit of further studies.

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent

OBJECTIVE

To present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The panel performed a literature review of new data, covering the time frame between 2016 and 2020. The guidelines were updated and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50 yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. Risk-adapted screening should be offered to men at increased risk from the age of 45 yr and to breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation carriers, who have been confirmed to be at risk of early and aggressive disease (mainly BRAC2), from around 40 yr of age. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is performed, a combination of targeted and systematic biopsies must be offered. There is currently no place for the routine use of tissue-based biomarkers. Whilst prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography is the most sensitive staging procedure, the lack of outcome benefit remains a major limitation. Active surveillance (AS) should always be discussed with low-risk patients, as well as with selected intermediate-risk patients with favourable International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the AS journey and the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A strong recommendation to consider moderate hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term hormonal treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for their use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Updated prostate cancer guidelines are presented, addressing screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. These guidelines rely on the available scientific evidence, and new insights will need to be considered and included on a regular basis. In some cases, the supporting evidence for new treatment options is not yet strong enough to provide a recommendation, which is why continuous updating is important. Patients must be fully informed of all relevant options and, together with their treating physicians, decide on the most optimal management for them.

Acceptance, Indications and Chances of Focal Therapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: A Real-World Perspective of Urologists in Germany

Purpose: Focal therapy (FT) became a frequently discussed treatment strategy of localized prostate cancer (PCa), but the acceptance and evaluation of FT by practicing urologists are still unclear. Methods: A 25-item anonymized online questionnaire (SurveyMonkey^®) was compiled by the German Society of Residents in Urology Academics Prostate Cancer Working Group and sent to the members of the German association of Urology. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine parameters for suggestion FT. Results: Two hundred ten urologists (median age 49 years) participated, from which 72% stated PCa as their main treatment focus. Ninety-nine percent of urologists were aware of and 54% wanted to improve their knowledge about FT. Sixty-five percent do not treat PCa with FT. FT is seen as an alternative to active surveillance and radiotherapy/radical prostatectomy by 66% and 37%, respectively. Regarding FT treatment strategies, 35% and 45% would treat all or all significant PCa foci, respectively, whereas 19% would treat mainly the index foci. Currently, 27% believe that FT will be an option as standard treatment in future, but 48% would not suggest FT to their patients, owing to an absence of evidence and insufficient diagnostic tools for proper patient selection today. Suggesting FT to patients is associated with self-performing FT (odds ratio [OR] 2.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-6.31) and believing in FT as a standard treatment in future (OR 9.05, 95% CI 6.68-22.30) (both p < 0.01). Conclusion: FT has currently no wide acceptance in German practicing urologists, mainly attributable to an absence of evidence for FT superiority compared to standard treatments.

Focal bipolar radiofrequency ablation for localized prostate cancer: Safety and feasibility

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and feasibility of focal bipolar radiofrequency ablation in men with localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

A review of 10 patients treated with a novel bipolar radiofrequency ablation probe integrated in a coil design (Encage; Trod Medical, Bradenton, FL, USA) between 2011 and 2017 in two prospective pilot trials. All men had clinical stage T1c prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/mL and Gleason score ≤7. Ablation was carried out under general anesthesia, and bipolar probes were inserted transperineally under transrectal ultrasound guidance. Treatment-related adverse events, quality of life and negative biopsy rate were evaluated at 6 months after ablation. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare baseline and post-treatment symptom scores.

RESULTS

The median age was 58 years (range 50-64 years) and the median prostate volume was 49.65 cc (range 21-68 cc). Prostate cancer with a Gleason score of 6 (3 + 3) and 7 (3 + 4) was noted in seven and three patients, respectively. The median number of radiofrequency ablation cycles was 2.5 (range 2-5). All patients were catheter-free and able to void the day of surgery. Within 6 months after ablation, all adverse events were low grade, with the exception of one grade 3 hematuria that required cystoscopy without coagulation. Six months after ablation bowel, urinary and hormonal functions, and overall satisfaction remained stable. Erectile dysfunction occurred in two out of four patients who had normal sexual function before the procedure. Neither urinary incontinence nor urinary infection was noted.

CONCLUSIONS

This first report on focal bipolar radiofrequency ablation documents a safe and feasible treatment option for selected patients with localized prostate cancer.

Early oncological control following partial gland cryo-ablation: a prospective experience specifying reflex MRI guided biopsy of the ablation zone

BACKGROUND

Several consensus statements recommend serial serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), multi parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), and prostate biopsy following partial gland ablation. We determined the rate of persistent in-field disease following primary partial gland cryo-ablation and whether PSA or mpMRI are reliable predictors of in-field disease persistence.

METHODS

Between March 2017 and July 2019, subjects meeting eligibility criteria for partial gland cryoablation were enrolled into an IRB approved outcomes registry. PSA, mpMRI, and prostate biopsy (four cores targeting the ablation zone + six ipsilateral systematic cores) were performed per protocol 6 months following intervention. Binary logistic regression was employed to calculate odds ratio (OR) of PSA decrease, and suspicious mpMRI effect on cancer persistence. The performance of mpMRI for predicting in-field persistence of PCa was evaluated by area under the receiver operation characteristics curve (AUC).

RESULTS

Of the 83 eligible men undergoing partial gland cryoablation, 70 (84.3%) underwent 6-month protocol prostate biopsy. Five (7.1%) biopsies exhibited any in-field disease persistence. Only one (1.4%) of these cancers was Gleason grade > 1. Neither PSA decrease or suspicious mpMRI reliably predicted cancer persistence, with OR of 1.6 (0.25-8.6) and 1.5 (0.02-1.3), respectively. AUC of mpMRI for predicting in-field disease persistence was 0.554.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of patients undergoing partial gland cryo-ablation, the incidence of persistent disease was low. PSA and mpMRI were not reliable predictors of in-field disease persistence. Based on these data, consideration may be given to deferring early follow-up biopsy in appropriate patients.

Role of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Predicting Pathologic Outcomes in Prostate Cancer

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and the introduction of standardized protocols for its interpretation have had a significant impact on the field of prostate cancer (PC). Multiple randomized controlled trials have shown that the sensitivity for detection of clinically significant PC is increased when mpMRI results are the basis for indication of a prostate biopsy. The added value with regards to sensitivity has been strongest for patients with persistent suspicion for PC after a prior negative biopsy. Although enhanced sensitivity of mpMRI is convincing, studies that have compared mpMRI with prostatectomy specimens prepared by whole-mount section analysis have shown a significant number of lesions that were not detected by mpMRI. In this context, the importance of an additional systematic biopsy (SB) is still being debated. While SB in combination with targeted biopsies leads to an increased detection rate, most of the tumors detected by SB only are considered clinically insignificant. Currently, multiple risk calculation tools are being developed that include not only clinical parameters but mpMRI results in addition to clinical parameters in order to improve risk stratification for PC, such as the Partin tables. In summary, mpMRI of the prostate has become a standard procedure recommended by multiple important guidelines for the diagnostic work-up of patients with suspicion of PC.

Focal therapy with high-intensity focused ultrasound for the localized prostate cancer for Asian based on the localization with MRI-TRUS fusion image-guided transperineal biopsy and 12-cores transperineal systematic biopsy: prospective analysis of oncological and functional outcomes

BACKGROUND

We evaluated clinical outcomes of region target focal therapy with high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for the localized prostate cancer (PCa) based on magnetic resonance imaging-based biopsy and systematic prostate biopsy for Asian.

METHODS

We prospectively recruited patients with localized PCa, located their significant tumors using MRI-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) elastic fusion image-guided transperineal prostate biopsy and 12-cores transperineal systematic biopsy, and focally treated these regions in which the tumors were located in the prostate using HIFU. Patients' functional and oncological outcomes were analyzed prospectively.

RESULTS

We treated 90 men (median age 70 years; median PSA level 7.26 ng/ml). Catheterization was performed within 24 h after the treatment in all patients. Biochemical disease-free rate was 92.2% during 21 months follow-up when use of Phoenix ASTRO definition. In follow-up biopsy, significant cancer was detected in 8.9% of the patients in un-treated areas. Urinary functions, including international prostate symptom score (IPSS) (P < 0.0001), IPSS quality of life (QOL) (P = 0.001), overactive bladder symptom score (OABSS) (P < 0.0001), EPIC urinary domain (P < 0.0001), maximum urinary flow rate (P < 0.0001), and IIEF-5 (P = 0.001), had significantly deteriorated at 1 month after treatment, but improved to preoperative levels at 3 or 6 months. Rates of erectile dysfunction and ejaculation who had the functions were 86% and 70%, respectively, at 12 months after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The present treatment for Asian would have similar oncological and functional outcomes to those in previous reports. Further large studies are required to verify oncological and functional outcomes from this treatment for patients with localized PCa.

Making a case "against" focal therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Focal therapy (FT) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) is a promising treatment strategy. Although, according to guidelines, it should be regarded as an experimental option, its introduction into clinical practice has occurred at an accelerated speed. It is, thus, crucial for Urologists to understand FT limitations and potential drawbacks that may derive from its use.

METHODS

We performed a literature search of peer-reviewed English language articles using Pubmed and the words "focal therapy" AND "prostate cancer" to identify relevant articles. Web search was complemented by manual search.

RESULTS

From a biological perspective, in contrast with the index lesion theory, which still needs to be better supported, PCa is a multifocal and multiclonal entity. Also, the effects of FT on PCa microenvironment are unclear. From a clinical perspective, patient selection is still not precisely defined. Even when all variables potentially decreasing mpMRI and biopsy accuracy are optimized, up to one out of two men may be incorrectly selected for FT, leaving a significant proportion of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) untreated. Underestimation of PCa volume and variant histologies are other additional mpMRI potential limitations. No RCTs have been performed against the standard of care to support FT. There is absence of long-term results and FT series reaching medium-term follow-up have non-optimal oncological control with significant re-treatment needs. When PCa recurs/persists after FT, little is known about the appropriate management strategies and their outcomes. Finally, the optimal follow-up scheme post-FT remains unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

Several arguments are present against the use of FT for localized PCa. Studies are needed to overcome current limitations and support FT before it can be included as part of the standard management of prostate cancer.

Comparative Effectiveness of Radiotherapy versus Focal Laser Ablation in Patients with Low and Intermediate Risk Localized Prostate Cancer

At present, focal laser ablation (FLA) as a new PCa local treatment has attracted attention. We aim at comparing the survival outcomes between radiotherapy (RT) and FLA to reveal whether FLA can be used as an alternative to RT for patients with low and intermediate-risk localized PCa.We conducted analyses with data from the SEER database (2004-2015). Propensity score matching and instrumental variate (IV) were used to reduce the influence of bias and unmeasured confounders maximally.In the adjusted multivariate regression, FLA had lower overall survival (OS) benefits (HR = 1.49; 95%CI: 1.18-1.87; p < 0.001). After propensity score matching, RT still had better OS (HR = 1.50; 95%CI: 1.17-1.93; p = 0.001). The outcomes of IV-adjusted analysis showed FLA was significantly inferior to RT in OS (HR = 1.49; 95%CI: 1.18-1.87). In the subgroup analyses, for those with PSA < 4 ng/mL, FLA showed markedly worse OS and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) outcomes (OS HR = 1.89; 95%CI: 1.01-3.53; p = 0.0466 and CSM HR = 4.25; 95%CI: 1.04-17.43; p = 0.044).FLA is a promising focal therapy of PCa. But our research demonstrated RT still had an obvious advantage in survival benefits over FLA. Using FLA as an alternative treatment for RT requires careful consideration by clinicians.

Prostate cancer biology & genomics

Prostate Cancer is now the second biggest cause of cancer mortality in the UK. Media coverage has been rising, with some attributing to a rise in the cases diagnosed and treated in the NHS down to the “Fry and Turnbull effect”. Our understanding of prostate cancer has increased tremendously in the past decades, with advances in molecular biology and genomics driving the way to new treatments and diagnostics. This Special Edition of Translational Andrology and Urology 2019: Prostate Cancer Biology and Genomics aims to review the current state of prostate cancer genomics, proteomics, diagnostics and treatment.

Contemporary treatments in prostate cancer focal therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Radical treatments for prostate cancer are associated with significant morbidity, including incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Advances in the field of prostate MRI and desire to reduce treatment morbidities have led to a rapid growth in focal treatments for prostate cancer. Here, we review novel focal prostate cancer treatments and their associated recent clinical data, with a particular focus on data reported within the last 24 months.

RECENT FINDINGS

High-intensity focal ultrasound, focal laser ablation, irreversible electroporation, focal cryotherapy, and photodynamic therapy have been used as treatment modalities for localized prostate cancer treatment. Despite the great variety of treatment techniques, each of these modalities is characterized by a significant rate of prostate cancer persistence within treatment zones (6-50%) and the presence of residual cancer within the prostate on rebiopsy (24-49%). These treatments, however, are associated with very low rates of high-grade complications, rare incontinence, and only mild or transient reductions in erectile function. The most common adverse events are urinary tract infections, hematuria, and urinary retention.

SUMMARY

Prostate cancer focal therapy is an attractive option for well-selected patients because of its low complication profile; however, long-term oncologic outcome is still lacking and early recurrence rates are high, limiting the ability of most urologic associations from endorsing its routine use.

Benefits and Risks of Primary Treatments for High-risk Localized and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: An International Multidisciplinary Systematic Review

CONTEXT

The optimal treatment for men with high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of the existing literature on the effectiveness of the different primary treatment modalities for high-risk localized and locally advanced PCa. The primary oncological outcome is the development of distant metastases at ≥5 yr of follow-up. Secondary oncological outcomes are PCa-specific mortality, overall mortality, biochemical recurrence, and need for salvage treatment with ≥5 yr of follow-up. Nononcological outcomes are quality of life (QoL), functional outcomes, and treatment-related side effects reported.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Randomized Controlled Trials were searched. All comparative (randomized and nonrandomized) studies published between January 2000 and May 2019 with at least 50 participants in each arm were included. Studies reporting on high-risk localized PCa (International Society of Urologic Pathologists [ISUP] grade 4-5 [Gleason score {GS} 8-10] or prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >20 ng/ml or ≥ cT2c) and/or locally advanced PCa (any PSA, cT3-4 or cN+, any ISUP grade/GS) or where subanalyses were performed on either group were included. The following primary local treatments were mandated: radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) (≥64 Gy), brachytherapy (BT), or multimodality treatment combining any of the local treatments above (±any systemic treatment). Risk of bias (RoB) and confounding factors were assessed for each study. A narrative synthesis was performed.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Overall, 90 studies met the inclusion criteria. RoB and confounding factors revealed high RoB for selection, performance, and detection bias, and low RoB for correction of initial PSA and biopsy GS. When comparing RP with EBRT, retrospective series suggested an advantage for RP, although with a low level of evidence. Both RT and RP should be seen as part of a multimodal treatment plan with possible addition of (postoperative) RT and/or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), respectively. High levels of evidence exist for EBRT treatment, with several randomized clinical trials showing superior outcome for adding long-term ADT or BT to EBRT. No clear cutoff can be proposed for RT dose, but higher RT doses by means of dose escalation schemes result in an improved biochemical control. Twenty studies reported data on QoL, with RP resulting mainly in genitourinary toxicity and sexual dysfunction, and EBRT in bowel problems.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this systematic review, both RP as part of multimodal treatment and EBRT + long-term ADT can be recommended as primary treatment in high-risk and locally advanced PCa. For high-risk PCa, EBRT + BT can also be offered despite more grade 3 toxicity. Interestingly, for selected patients, for example, those with higher comorbidity, a shorter duration of ADT might be an option. For locally advanced PCa, EBRT + BT shows promising result but still needs further validation. In this setting, it is important that patients are aware that the offered therapy will most likely be in the context a multimodality treatment plan. In particular, if radiation is used, the combination of local with systemic treatment provides the best outcome, provided the patient is fit enough to receive both. Until the results of the SPCG15 trial are known, the optimal local treatment remains a matter of debate. Patients should at all times be fully informed about all available options, and the likelihood of a multimodal approach including the potential side effects of both local and systemic treatment.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed the literature to see whether the evidence from clinical studies would tell us the best way of curing men with aggressive prostate cancer that had not spread to other parts of the body such as lymph glands or bones. Based on the results of this systematic review, there is good evidence that both surgery and radiation therapy are good treatment options, in terms of prolonging life and preserving quality of life, provided they are combined with other treatments. In the case of surgery this means including radiotherapy (RT), and in the case of RT this means either hormonal therapy or combined RT and brachytherapy.

Prospective evaluation of fexapotide triflutate injection treatment of Grade Group 1 prostate cancer: 4-year results

Purpose

This study was undertaken to determine the safety and efficacy of fexapotide triflutate (FT) 2.5 mg and 15 mg for the treatment of Grade Group 1 prostate cancer.

Methods

Prospective randomized transrectal intraprostatic single injection FT 2.5 mg (n = 49), FT 15 mg (n = 48) and control active surveillance (AS) (n = 49) groups were compared in 146 patients at 28 U.S. sites, with elective AS crossover (n = 18) to FT after first follow-up biopsy at 45 days. Patients were followed for 5 years including biopsies (baseline, 45 days, and 18, 36, and 54 months thereafter), and urological evaluations with PSA every 6 months. Patients with Gleason grade increase or who elected surgical or radiotherapeutic intervention exited the study and were cumulatively included in the data analysis. Percentage of normal biopsies in baseline focus quadrant, tumor grades, and volumes; and outcomes including Gleason grade in entire prostate as well as treated prostate lobe, interventions associated with Gleason grade increase and total incidence of interventions were assessed.

Results

Significantly improved long-term clinical outcomes were found after 4-year follow-up, with percentages of patients progressing to interventions with and without Gleason grade increase significantly reduced by FT single treatment. Results in the FT 15-mg group were superior to the FT 2.5-mg dose group. There were no drug-related serious adverse events (SAEs).

Conclusions

FT showed statistically significant long-term efficacy in the treatment of Grade Group 1 patients regarding clinical and pathological progression. FT 15 mg showed superior results to FT 2.5 mg. There were no drug-related SAEs; FT injection was well tolerated.

Cartography-based quality control of prostate cancer care: a necessary ground to targeted focal therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We summarize the evidence on accurate target definition, precise imaging, and guiding systems that are a necessary ground to targeted focal therapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Accurate target detection is based on the ability of imaging to locate and characterize precisely the tumor burden and differentiation inside the prostate. There is a clear correlation with the multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) images and the morphologic attributes of the tumor. Limitations stem from the heterogeneity and the multifocality of prostate cancer. Some prostate cancers are MRI-negative tumors. Safety margins should also be elaborated based on the tumor grade and burden. PET prostate specific membrane antigen is another promising technology yielding same results as multiparametric MRI for primary detection of prostate cancer, but PET/MRI imaging is promising. Perfect guiding requires sophisticated software with good quality control to track the needle inside the prostate and to record the position allowing recall when second look biopsy, active surveillance, or targeted focal therapy are required.

SUMMARY

The multimodal fusion cartography model proves effective and necessary to fulfill preoperative and postoperative requirements for targeted focal therapy.

Focal therapy for localized prostate cancer in the era of routine multi-parametric MRI

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer focal therapy aims to minimize the side-effects of whole gland treatments, such as radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy without compromising oncological efficacy. However, concerns exist regarding the multifocal nature of prostate cancer and the lack of long-term oncological data for this form of treatment. In recent years, the routine adoption of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate has improved our ability to select candidates for focal therapy and to accurately deliver this form of prostate cancer treatment.

METHODS

We performed a review of the literature to provide a summary of the oncological and functional outcomes of men receiving primary prostate focal therapy. Furthermore, we discuss the impact of the routine implementation of mpMRI as part of the initial prostate cancer diagnostic pathway on the selection of candidates and delivery of focal therapy. Finally, we summarize knowledge gaps in the field and highlight active clinical trials in this arena.

RESULTS

Primary focal therapy involves the application of one of a number of energies that ablate tissue, such as cryotherapy and high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). Success is principally dependent on highly accurate patient selection and disease localization underpinned in large part by the routine integration of pre-biopsy mpMRI. Prospective medium-term follow-up data for primary HIFU and cryotherapy for men with intermediate-risk disease have shown acceptable cancer control with low risk of side effects and complications. Additional research is needed to clearly define an appropriate follow-up approach and to guide the management of in- and out-of-field recurrences. Multiple comparative trials with randomization against standard care are currently underway in men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.

CONCLUSION

The widespread adoption of prostate mpMRI has led to improved disease localization, enabling the performance of focal therapy as a viable treatment strategy for men with low volume intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Current status and future prospective of focal therapy for localized prostate cancer: development of multiparametric MRI, MRI-TRUS fusion image-guided biopsy, and treatment modalities

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has been increasingly used to diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) because of its usefulness in combination with anatomic and functional data. MRI-targeted biopsy, such as MRI-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion image-guided prostate biopsy, has high accuracy in the detection and localization of csPC. This novel diagnostic technique contributes to the development of tailor-made medicine as focal therapy, which cures the csPC while preserving the anatomical structures related to urinary and sexual function. In the early days of focal therapy, TRUS-guided systematic biopsy was used for patient selection, and treatment was performed for patients with low-risk PC. With the introduction of mpMRI and mapping biopsy, the treatment range is now determined based on individualized cancer localization. In recent prospective studies, 87.4% of treated patients had intermediate- and high-risk PC. However, focal therapy has two main limitations. First, a randomized controlled trial would be difficult to design because of the differences in pathological features between patients undergoing focal therapy and radical treatment. Therefore, pair-matched studies and/or historical controlled studies have been performed to compare focal therapy and radical treatment. Second, no long-term (≥ 10-year) follow-up study has been performed. However, recent prospective studies have encouraged the use of focal therapy as a treatment strategy for localized PC because it contributes to high preservation of continence and erectile function.

Histopathological evaluation of prostate specimens after thermal ablation may be confounded by the presence of thermally-fixed cells

Purpose: Prostate cancer can be eradicated with heat exposure. However, high and rapid temperature elevations may cause thermofixation giving the appearance of viable tissue. The purpose was to characterize the immunoprofile and evaluate the viability of prostate regions with suspected thermofixation. Methods and materials: A prospective, ethics-approved and registered study (NCT03350529) enrolled six patients with MRI-visible, biopsy-concordant prostate cancer to undergo lesion-targeted MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation (TULSA) followed by radical prostatectomy at 3 weeks, to evaluate the accuracy and efficacy of TULSA with whole-mount histology as a reference standard. If ambiguity about complete necrosis within the ablated region remained after hematoxylin-eosin staining, viability was assessed by immunohistochemistry. Treatment day MRI-thermometry and 3-week contrast-enhanced MRI post-TULSA were examined to assess ablation success and correlation with histopathology. Results: One patient presented with an apparently viable subregion inside the ablated area, surrounded by necrosis on H&E staining, located where temperature was highest on MRI-thermometry and tissues completely devascularized on MRI. Immunoprofile of the apparently viable tissue revealed changes in staining patterns suggesting thermofixation; the most significant evidence was the negative cytokeratin 8 staining detected with Cam5.2 antibody. A comprehensive literature review supports these observations of thermofixation with similar findings in prostate and other tissues. Conclusion: Thermally-fixed cells can sustain morphology on H&E staining. Misinterpretation of treatment failure may occur, if this phenomenon is not recognized and immunohistochemistry performed. Based on the previous literature and the current study, Cam5.2 staining for cytokeratin 8 appears to be a practical and reliable tool for distinguishing thermally-fixed from viable cells.

Interventional therapy in malignant conditions of the prostate

Interventional therapies are emerging modalities for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Their aim is to reduce the morbidity associated with radical therapies (rT) by minimizing damage to non-cancerous tissue, with priority given to sparing key structures such as the neurovascular bundles, external sphincter, bladder neck, and rectum, while maintaining local cancer control. Interventional ablative technologies deliver energy in different ways to destroy cancer cells. The most widely investigated techniques are brachytherapy, external beam radiotherapy, cryotherapy, and high-intensity focused ultrasound. Although functional outcomes of focal therapies have been encouraging, with generally low rates of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction, robust medium- and long-term oncological outcomes are not available for all techniques. To date, major controversies in focal therapy concern appropriate patient selection, efficacy of focal therapies, as well as treatment paradigms based on the dominant index lesion hypothesis. This review articles discusses the current status of interventional therapies and the oncological and functional outcomes.

Sexual function outcomes following interventions for prostate cancer: are contemporary reports on functional outcomes misleading?

Patients with primary localised prostate cancer (PCa) have a wide choice of curative therapeutic interventions, including active surveillance, surgical, focal and radiation therapies. Based on clinical and oncological characteristics, treatment decisions entail consideration of oncological and functional outcomes with important effects on quality of life. We aimed to highlight evidence surrounding present inconsistencies, the problems this presents to clinicians and patients alike and the rationale for using return to baseline as a more realistic and objective functional outcome measure for assessing sexual function in this particularly sensitive group of men. We performed a non-systematic literature review of numerous non-validated, arbitrary thresholds employed in evaluation of sexual function outcomes in men undergoing intervention for primary localised PCa. The literature presents much heterogeneity in measurement methods and outcome measures, which lack context and present difficulties when counselling patients to make informed, autonomous decisions. These include findings from the most widely used internationally validated tools, such as the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), UCLA prostate cancer index and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30 (QLQ-C30). There is a need for standardisation of reporting outcomes following PCa treatment to facilitate evaluation of existing and emerging technologies.

MRI targeted single fraction HDR Brachytherapy for localized Prostate Carcinoma: a feasibility study of focal radiation therapy (ProFocAL)

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to establish the setup and workflow for delivering focal MRI-guided high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy for prostate cancer (PCA) and to assess patient comfort and safety aspects of MRI-guided single-fraction HDR.

METHODS

Patients with histologically proven focal low- to intermediate-risk PCA with a single PIRADS 4/5 lesion were treated with percutaneous interstitial HDR brachytherapy in a single fraction with a minimum dose for the gross tumor volume of 20 Gy while sparing the organ at risk (OAR). Using a 3T-MRI, brachytherapy catheters were placed transgluteal in freehand technique. No antibiotic therapy or general analgesics were administered. Patient data, procedure time, patient discomfort, and complications were recorded. Quarterly PSA controls, biannual follow-up imaging, and annual re-biopsy were planned.

RESULTS

So far, 9 patients were successfully treated and followed for 6 months. Mean intervention time was 34 min. Using the VAS scale, the pain reported for the intervention ranged from 2 to 3. Short-term follow-up showed no acute genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicity so far. None of the patients displayed signs of infection. PSA levels in all patients decreased significantly. On follow up no residual PCA was detected treated region so far. PSA levels in all patients decreased significantly. On follow-up, no residual PCA was detected so far.

CONCLUSIONS

MR-guided single-fraction focal HDR brachytherapy for localized PCA is feasible as well as safe for the individual patient. Catheters can be placed accurately and maximum therapeutic dose distribution can be restricted to the tumor. Countersigning the minimally invasive character of the procedure, no general anesthesia or antibiosis is necessary.

KEY POINTS

• MR-guided focal HDR brachytherapy allows an accurate placement of catheters with maximum therapeutic dose distribution restricted to the tumor. • No major anesthesia or antibiosis is necessary emphasizing the minimal invasive character of the procedure. • Patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate carcinoma in particular may benefit to halt disease progression whereas treatment-related morbidity is reduced compared with radical therapy.

Medium-term oncological outcomes in a large cohort of men treated with either focal or hemi-ablation using high-intensity focused ultrasonography for primary localized prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To report medium-term oncological outcomes in men receiving primary focal treatment with high-intensity focused ultrasonography ( HIFU) for prostate cancer (PCa).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients with PCa treated with primary focal HIFU at two centres by six treating clinicians were assessed. Patients were submitted to either focal ablation or hemi-ablation using HIFU (Sonablate 500). The primary objective of the study was to assess medium-term oncological outcomes, defined as overall survival, freedom from biopsy failure, freedom from any further treatment and freedom from radical treatment after focal HIFU. The secondary objective was to evaluate the changes in pathological features among patients treated with focal HIFU over time. We also assessed the relationship between year of surgery and 5-year retreatment probability.

RESULTS

A total of 1032 men treated between November 2005 and October 2017 were assessed. The median age was 65 years and median prostate-specific antigen level was 7 ng/mL. The majority of patients had a Gleason score of 3 + 4 or above (80.3%). The median (interquartile range) follow-up was 36 (14-64) months. The overall survival rates at 24, 60 and 96 months were 99%, 97% and 97%, respectively. Freedom from biopsy failure, defined as absence of Gleason 3 + 4 disease, was 84%, 64% and 54% at 24, 60 and 96 months. Freedom from any further treatment was 85%, 59% and 46% at 24, 60 and 96 months, respectively. Approximately 70% of patients who were retreated received a second focal treatment. Freedom from radical treatment was 98%, 91% and 81% at 24, 60 and 96 months. During the study period, we observed an increase in the proportion of patients undergoing focal HIFU with Gleason 3 + 4 disease and with T2 stage disease as defined by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Finally, there was a reduction over time in the proportion of patients undergoing re-treatment within 5 years of first treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Focal HIFU for PCa is a feasible therapeutic strategy, with acceptable survival and oncological results and a reduction in the 5-year retreatment rates over the last decade. Re-do focal treatment is a feasible technique whose functional and oncological outcomes have still to be evaluated.

Focal Laser Ablation Versus Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Survival Outcomes From a Matched Cohort

BACKGROUND

Focal therapy for localized prostate cancer (PCa) remains investigational. We aimed to investigate the oncologic outcomes of focal laser ablation (FLA) and compare them with those of radical prostatectomy (RP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients treated with FLA or RP for localized PCa between 2004 and 2015 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were utilized to calculate the survival benefits. Propensity score (PS) matching and adjusted standardized mortality ratio weighting (SMRW) models were used to balance the 2 groups. Subgroup analyses according to tumor stage, prostate-specific antigen level, and Gleason score were also conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 12,875 patients were included, of whom 12,433 were treated with RP, whereas 442 were treated with FLA; 321 pairs of patients were eventually matched. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced by PS matching. The mean follow-up was 59.62 months for the RP group and 62.26 months for the FLA group. Before matching, the FLA group had lower but statistically insignificant cancer-specific mortality (CSM) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-2.45; P = .4879) and higher any-cause mortality (ACM) (HR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.38-3.98; P = .0016) compared with the RP group, which was supported by the outcomes in the PS-matched cohort (CSM: HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.18-3.67; P = .7936; ACM: HR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.38-3.98; P = .0016) and the SMRW model (CSM: HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.15-2.44; P = .4877; ACM: HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.18-3.42; P = .0103).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that FLA had a higher risk of ACM but an insignificantly lower risk of CSM compared with RP. More high-quality trials are needed to confirm and expand our findings.

The Precision Prostatectomy: an IDEAL Stage 0, 1 and 2a Study

Objective

This study aimed to develop a preclinical model of prostate cancer (CaP) for studying focal/hemiablation of the prostate (IDEAL stage 0), and to use the information from the stage 0 investigation to design a novel focal surgical treatment approach—the precision prostatectomy (IDEAL stage 1/2a).

Methods

The IDEAL stage 0 study included simulation of focal/hemiablation in whole-mount prostate specimens obtained from 100 men who had undergone radical prostatectomies, but met the criteria for focal/hemiablation. The IDEAL stage 1/2a was a prospective, single-arm, Institutional Review Board-approved study of precision prostatectomy undertaken in eight men, who met the predetermined criteria. Criteria for both stages included (1) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤15 ng/mL, (2) stage ≤cT2, (3) dominant unilateral lesion with Gleason ≤4+3 with any number of cores or % cores involved ipsilaterally on transrectal biopsy, (4) no primary Gleason ≥4 contralaterally on transrectal biopsy, and (5) preoperative erectile function score (International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF)-5) of ≥17 (out of 25) without PDE-5i (applicable only to the stage 1/2a study participants). Feasibility and safety of the precision prostatectomy technique, and short-term urinary, sexual and oncological outcomes were studied.

Results

Analysis of whole-mount specimens in the 100 men showed an index lesion (>1 cm in diameter) in all. Ninety-eight men had satellite lesions smaller than 0.5 cm∧3 in volume—46 on the side of the dominant lesions and 52 in the contralateral lobe. If the men in this modeling cohort had undergone focal ablation with a 5–10 mm untreated margin, all except one would have had at least Gleason 6 residual cancer. If they had undergone hemiablation with no untreated tissue on the ablated side, 56 men would have had residual cancer on the contralateral side, of whom 21 would have had clinically significant cancer (Gleason 7 or higher). If these men had undergone precision prostatectomy, with preservation of 5–10 mm of tissue on the non-dominant side, 10% and 4% would have had Gleason 3+4 and Gleason 4+3 disease left behind, respectively. For the stage 1/2a study, the median (IQR) age, PSA and IIEF-5 scores at the time of surgery were 54 (52–57) years, 4.4 (3.8–6.1) ng/mL and 24 (23-25), respectively. All eight patients were continent and sexually active at 12 months with a median IIEF-5 score of 21 (out of 25). At 24–30 months from surgery, the median PSA was 0.2 (range 0.1–0.7) ng/mL. Six men had undergone follow-up protocol biopsies, two, with undetectable PSA, had refused. Two men had residual Gleason 3+3 cancer, with PSA of 0.7 and 0.4 ng/mL, and remain on active surveillance. No man has undergone secondary whole-gland therapy.

Conclusions

Examination of whole-mount radical prostatectomy specimens in men who fit the conventional criteria of focal/hemiablation showed that approximately 21%–68% of men would have clinically significant CaP in the untreated tissue. In a small development cohort, precision prostatectomy was technically feasible, with excellent postoperative functional recovery. At 30 months of follow-up, no patient had clinically significant residual cancer or required secondary treatment. Pending long-term follow-up, a risk-stratified surgical approach may avoid whole-gland therapy and preserve erectile function in the majority of men with intermediate-risk CaP.

Automatic stratification of prostate tumour aggressiveness using multiparametric MRI: a horizontal comparison of texture features

Background: Previous studies have identified apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) from diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) can stratify prostate cancer into high- and low-grade disease (HG and LG, respectively). In this study, we consider the improvement of incorporating texture features (TFs) from T2-weighted (T2w) multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) relative to mpMRI alone to predict HG and LG disease. Material and methods: In vivo mpMRI was acquired from 30 patients prior to radical prostatectomy. Sequences included T2w imaging, DWI and dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI. In vivo mpMRI data were co-registered with 'ground truth' histology. Tumours were delineated on the histology with Gleason scores (GSs) and classed as HG if GS ≥ 4 + 3, or LG if GS ≤ 3 + 4. Texture features based on three statistical families, namely the grey-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM), grey-level run length matrix (GLRLM) and the grey-level size zone matrix (GLSZM), were computed from T2w images. Logistic regression models were trained using different feature subsets to classify each lesion as either HG or LG. To avoid overfitting, fivefold cross validation was applied on feature selection, model training and performance evaluation. Performance of all models generated was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC) method. Results: Consistent with previous studies, ADC was found to discriminate between HG and LG with an AUC of 0.76. Of the three statistical TF families, GLCM (plus select mpMRI features including ADC) scored the highest AUC (0.84) with GLRLM plus mpMRI similarly performing well (AUC  =  0.82). When all TFs were considered in combination, an AUC of 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.87-0.95) was achieved. Conclusions: Incorporating T2w TFs significantly improved model performance for classifying prostate tumour aggressiveness. This result, however, requires further validation in a larger patient cohort.

Salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound for locally recurrent prostate cancer after low-dose-rate brachytherapy: oncological and functional outcomes

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the oncological and functional outcomes of salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound (S-HIFU) for locally recurrent prostate cancer after low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Clinical phase II studies (2003-2015) included 50 consecutive patients with post-brachytherapy local recurrence treated by S-HIFU. S-HIFU was performed with post-external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) parameters and, since 2008, with specific post-brachytherapy parameters. Treatments were whole-gland ablation and, since 2009, hemi-ablation in cases of unilateral prostate cancer. The primary objective was to assess oncological outcomes: treatment failure-free survival, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and metastasis-free survival (MFS) rates. The secondary objective was to evaluate adverse events, continence, and erectile function. Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

In all, 13 patients were treated with post-EBRT parameters, 37 with post-brachytherapy parameters, 35 with whole-gland treatment, and 15 with hemi-ablation. The median follow-up was 4.6 years. After S-HIFU, the median prostate-specific antigen level was 0.3 ng/mL. At 6 years, treatment failure-free survival, PFS, OS, CSS, and MFS rates were 41%, 45%, 93%, 98%, and 80%, respectively. Post-brachytherapy compared with post-EBRT parameters reduced Grade 2-3 incontinence (34% vs 62%, P = 0.015). Incontinence, bladder outlet obstruction and Grade ≥III complications were significantly reduced with hemi-ablation compared with whole-gland treatment (14% vs 54%, P < 0.001; 13% vs 46%, P = 0.03; 13% vs 63%, P = 0.001; respectively). Before S-HIFU, 25 patients had a five-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function score of ≥17, which was maintained in 48% at 12 months.

CONCLUSION

S-HIFU for locally recurrent prostate cancer after LDR brachytherapy is associated with favourable survival rates at a price of significant morbidity. Dedicated post-brachytherapy parameters and hemi-ablation improve the safety of the treatment.

Comprehensive Evaluation of Focal Therapy Complications in Prostate Cancer: A Standardized Methodology

Purpose: Today, up to one-third of newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PCa) cases may be suitable for focal treatment. The lack of data about the toxicity profiles of lesion-targeting therapies, however, has made it difficult to compare treatment modalities. The aim of the present study was to evaluate comprehensively the incidence, severity, and timing of onset of complications for PCa patients undergoing focal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and focal cryosurgical ablation of the prostate (CSAP). Materials and Methods: A total of 336 patients were included who underwent focal HIFU or focal CSAP as a primary treatment for PCa between January 2009 and December 2017. Mean follow-up was 11 months (standard deviation: 3.0). All complications were captured and graded according to severity, and classified by timing of onset. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of the most common side effects. Results: There were 98 complications in 79/210 patients (38%) undergoing focal HIFU and 34 complications in 27/126 patients (21%) undergoing focal CSAP. In terms of severity, 95% of the complications of focal HIFU and 91% of the complications of focal CSAP were minor. Most complications presented in the early postoperative period. On multivariate analysis, subtotal HIFU was associated with acute urinary retention (AUR), while a smaller prostate size and longer catheterization time with dysuria. In CSAP patients, longer catheterization time was associated with AUR and urethral sloughing. The main limitation is the nonrandomized and retrospective nature. Conclusions: Focal HIFU and focal CSAP provide a tolerable toxicity, with primarily minor complications presenting in the early postoperative period.

Structured Population-based Prostate-specific Antigen Screening for Prostate Cancer: The European Association of Urology Position in 2019

Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the first three causes of cancer mortality in Europe. Screening in asymptomatic men (aged 55-69yr) using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is associated with a migration toward lower staged disease and a reduction in cancer-specific mortality. By 20yr after testing, around 100 men need to be screened to prevent one PCa death. While this ratio is smaller than for breast and colon cancer, the long natural history of PCa means many men die from other causes. As such, the nonselective use of PSA testing and radical treatments can lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The European Association of Urology (EAU) supports measures to encourage appropriate PCa detection through PSA testing, while reducing overdiagnosis and overtreatment. These goals may be achieved using personalized risk-stratified approaches. For diagnosis, the greatest benefit from early detection is likely to come in men assessed using baseline PSA levels at the age of 45yr to individualize screening intervals. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging as well as risk calculators based on family history, ethnicity, digital rectal examination, and prostate volume should be considered to triage the need for biopsy, thus reducing the risk of overdiagnosis. For treatment, the EAU advocates balancing patient's life expectancy and cancer's mortality risk when deciding an approach. Active surveillance is encouraged in well-informed patients with low-risk and some intermediate-risk cancers, as it decreases the risks of overtreatment without compromising oncological outcomes. Conversely, the EAU advocates radical treatment in suitable men with more aggressive PCa. Multimodal treatment should be considered in locally advanced or high-grade cancers. PATIENT SUMMARY: Implementation of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening should be considered at a population level. Men at risk of prostate cancer should have a baseline PSA blood test (eg, at 45yr). The level of this test, combined with family history, ethnicity, and other factors, can be used to determine subsequent follow-up. Magnetic resonance imaging scans and novel biomarkers should be used to determine which men need biopsy and how any cancers should be treated.