Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy After Focal Therapy: Oncological, Functional Outcomes and Predictors of Recurrence

Oncologic and Functional Outcomes of Salvage Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Report of the First 10 Cases

BACKGROUND

Salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (sRARP) after PSA failure in patients who underwent initial radiotherapy or focal therapy has rarely been reported in Japan. We aimed to report the oncologic and functional outcomes of the first 10 cases of sRARP.

METHODS

Ten patients underwent sRARP after failing to respond to initial radiotherapy or focal therapy. Initial definitive treatment included volumetric modulated arc therapy, intensity-modulated radio therapy, stereotactic body radiotherapy, heavy-ion radiotherapy, low-dose-rate brachytherapy, and high-intensity focused ultrasound. We retrospectively investigated 10 cases on oncologic and functional outcomes of sRARP.

RESULTS

The median PSA level at sRARP, amount of blood loss, and console time were 2.17 ng/mL, 100 mL, and 136 min, respectively. Positive surgical margins were found in half of the cases. Median follow-up was 1.1 years. There were no 30-day major complications. No patients had erections after sRARP. Urinary continence and biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate were 40% and 30% at 1 year after sRARP, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Salvage RARP may be a feasible option after PSA failure in patients who underwent radiotherapy or focal therapy as initial treatment, showing acceptable BCR rate.

Salvage treatments after focal therapy for prostate cancer - a comprehensive review

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature on salvage treatments after focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A non-systematic literature review was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to March 15, 2024, for studies that assessed salvage treatment outcomes in patients with recurrent PCa after primary FT. Original prospective and retrospective studies with more than 10 patients were included. Reviews, editorial comments, conference abstracts, and studies focusing solely on whole-gland treatments were excluded.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies with a total of 1012 patients were included. The most reported salvage treatments were salvage radical prostatectomy followed by re-do ablation therapy. Only one study evaluated salvage radiation therapy. Except for one prospective study, all studies were retrospective. Oncological outcomes showed acceptable biochemical recurrence rates. Functional outcomes varied, with significant impacts observed on erectile function across modalities, though continence rates were less impacted. Complications were generally low across all treatment options.

CONCLUSION

Salvage treatment post-primary FT is feasible, safe, and has reasonable oncologic outcomes. However, significant declines in sexual function are common, while continence is comparatively less affected. The literature primarily consists of retrospective studies; hence, future research should focus on large-scale prospective evaluations to better define treatment protocols and improve patient outcomes.

Win ratio analysis of short-term clinical outcomes of focal therapy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for the patients with localized prostate cancer

We compared the comprehensive clinical outcomes of focal therapy (FT) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in patients with localized prostate cancer (PC) using a win ratio analysis. After propensity score matching, a win ratio analysis, in which the composite endpoints of failure-free survival (FFS) and the urinary domain of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) were analyzed, was used for the comparison of the clinical outcomes of FT and RARP for the patients with localized PC. Seventy-two patients were included in each group after propensity score matching. FFS was not significantly different between the groups (p = 0.5044) after 36 months of follow-up. In contrast, the score of the urinary domain of the EPIC in the FT group was significantly better than that in the RARP group (p < 0.0001). The win ratio of FT per RARP was 3.39 (p < 0.0001; 95% confidence interval 2.21-5.20), suggesting a higher comprehensive outcome in the FT group than in the RARP group during short-term follow-up in single institution. Although further randomized trial with long-term follow-up would be needed for the evaluation, the win ratio would be useful to analyze the efficacy of FT according to patient preferences comprehensively.

The Contemporary Role of Salvage Radical Prostatectomy in the Management of Recurrent Prostate Cancer: An Up-to-Date Review

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer among men, with many treatment modalities available for patients, such as radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound, cryotherapy, electroporation and other whole-gland or focal ablative novel techniques. Unfortunately, up to 60% of men with prostate cancer experience recurrence at 5 to 10 years. Salvage radical prostatectomy can be offered as an option in the setting of recurrence after a primary non-surgical treatment. However, the complexity of salvage radical prostatectomy is considered to be greater than that of primary surgery, making it the least popular treatment of choice. With the wide use of robotic platforms in urologic oncologic surgery, salvage radical prostatectomy has attracted attention again because, compared to past data, modern series involving salvage Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy have shown promising results. In this narrative literature review, we comprehensively examined data on salvage radical prostatectomy. We investigated the correlation between the different types of primary prostate cancer therapy and the following salvage radical prostatectomy. Furthermore, we explored the concept of a robotic approach and its beneficial effect in salvage surgery. Lastly, we emphasized several promising avenues for future research in this field.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for treatment of a newly identified lesion revealed no viable cells in the previously treated area with microwave focal therapy

Introduction

Histological outcome of the targeted focal therapy is in principle confirmed by targeted needle biopsy from the treated area in clinical trial. Herein, we report a rare case in which the MFT was followed by RARP.

Case presentation

A 68-year-old man with PSA 9.6 ng/mL and PI-RADS 4 lesion in the right transition zone on multi-parametric MRI underwent MR/ultrasound fusion-guided targeted biopsy, which revealed grade-group 1 cancer. Targeted focal therapy with microwave ablation was performed, resulting in disappearance of the PI-RADS 4 lesion at post-operative 4 months. However, PSA rose to 11.5 ng/mL, and a new PI-RADS 4 lesion, was identified in the left peripheral zone. RARP was performed to reveal new grade-group 3 cancer, and no viable cells in the previously treated area with MFT.

Conclusion

RARP was safely performed even after MFT and proved the pathological complete response of microwave ablation.

A Novel Nomogram to Identify Candidates for Focal Therapy Among Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer Diagnosed via Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted and Systematic Biopsies: A European Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Suitable selection criteria for focal therapy (FT) are crucial to achieve success in localized prostate cancer (PCa).

OBJECTIVE

To develop a multivariable model that better delineates eligibility for FT and reduces undertreatment by predicting unfavorable disease at radical prostatectomy (RP).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Data were retrospectively collected from a prospective European multicenter cohort of 767 patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted and systematic biopsies followed by RP in eight referral centers between 2016 and 2021. The Imperial College of London eligibility criteria for FT were applied: (1) unifocal MRI lesion with Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score of 3-5; (2) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤20 ng/ml; (3) cT2-3a stage on MRI; and (4) International Society of Urological Pathology grade group (GG) 1 and ≥6 mm or GG 2-3. A total of 334 patients were included in the final analysis.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was unfavorable disease at RP, defined as GG ≥4, and/or lymph node invasion, and/or seminal vesicle invasion, and/or contralateral clinically significant PCa. Logistic regression was used to assess predictors of unfavorable disease. The performance of the models including clinical, MRI, and biopsy information was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration plots, and decision curve analysis. A coefficient-based nomogram was developed and internally validated.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Overall, 43 patients (13%) had unfavorable disease on RP pathology. The model including PSA, clinical stage on digital rectal examination, and maximum lesion diameter on MRI had an AUC of 73% on internal validation and formed the basis of the nomogram. Addition of other MRI or biopsy information did not significantly improve the model performance. Using a cutoff of 25%, the proportion of patients eligible for FT was 89% at the cost of missing 30 patients (10%) with unfavorable disease. External validation is required before the nomogram can be used in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

We report the first nomogram that improves selection criteria for FT and limits the risk of undertreatment.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We conducted a study to develop a better way of selecting patients for focal therapy for localized prostate cancer. A novel predictive tool was developed using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level measured before biopsy, tumor stage assessed via digital rectal examination, and lesion size on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. This tool improves the prediction of unfavorable disease and may reduce the risk of undertreatment of localized prostate cancer when using focal therapy.

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.

Salvage Radical Prostatectomy after Primary Focal Ablative Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

CONTEXT

Focal therapy (FT) has been gaining popularity as a treatment option for localized intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) due to the associated lower morbidity compared to whole-gland treatment. However, there is an increased risk of local cancer recurrence requiring subsequent treatment in a small proportion of patients.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to better describe and analyze patient postoperative, oncologic, and functional outcomes for those who underwent salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) to manage their primary FT failure.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was completed using three databases (PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL) from October to December 2021 to identify data on outcomes in patients who received sRP for cancer recurrence after prior focal treatment.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

12 articles (482 patients) were included. Median time to sRP was 24 months. Median follow-up time was 27 months. A meta-analysis revealed a postoperative complication rate of 15% (95% CI: 0.09, 0.24), with 4.6% meeting criteria for a major complication Clavien (CG) grade ≥3. Severe GU toxicity was seen in 3.6% of the patients, and no patients had severe GI toxicity. Positive surgical margins (PSM) were found in 27% (95% CI: 0.19, 0.37). Biochemical recurrence (BCR) after sRP occurred in 23% (95% CI: 0.17, 0.30), indicating a BCR-free probability of 77% at 2 years. Continence (pad-free) and potency (ability to have penetrative sex) were maintained in 67% (95% CI: 0.53, 0.78) and 37% (95% CI: 0.18, 0.62) at 12 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our evidence shows acceptable complication rates and oncologic outcomes; however, with suboptimal functional outcomes for patients undergoing sRP for recurrent PCa after prior FT. Inferior outcomes were observed for salvage treatment compared to primary radical prostatectomy (pRP). More high-quality studies are needed to better characterize outcomes after this sequence of PCa treatments.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We looked at treatment outcomes and toxicity for men treated with sRP for prior FT failure. We conclude that these patients will have significant detriment to genitourinary function, with outcomes being worse than those for pRP patients.

Salvage Radical Prostatectomy for Recurrent Prostate Cancer After Primary Nonsurgical Treatment: An Updated Systematic Review

Salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) has historically been associated with high morbidity, whilst recently published multicentre series suggested a trend towards improved outcomes. Hence, we performed a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses criteria to investigate the oncological and functional results and morbidity of sRP. We included 20 retrospective articles comprising 4175 men. Robotic procedures were performed in 40% and nerve sparing in up to 36% of men. Postoperative continence was preserved in 40.4% of patients and erectile function in <16%. High-grade complications were described in 6.6% of patients (rectal injuries 0.9%). At final sRP pathology, surgical margins were positive in 26.1%, 32.8% had seminal vesicle invasion, and International Society of Urological Pathology grade was >3 in 26.6%. Ten-year metastasis-free survival ranged from 72% to 77% and 5-yr cancer-specific survival ranged from 86.6% to 97.7%. Salvage radical prostatectomy shows durable oncological control and morbidity improved over recent years, despite remaining significant compared to and higher than that of primary radical prostatectomy. PATIENT SUMMARY: Salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) shows improving oncological control and morbidity over time. The complications associated with sRP and its functional results seem to be acceptable and are continuously improving.

Cryotherapy for partial gland ablation of prostate cancer: Oncologic and safety outcomes

BACKGROUND

Partial gland ablation (PGA) is a new option for treatment of prostate cancer (PCa). Cryotherapy, an early method of PGA, has had favorable evaluations, but few studies have employed a strict protocol using biopsy endpoints in men with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).

METHODS

143 men with unilateral csPCa were enrolled in a prospective, observational trial of outpatient PGA-cryotherapy. Treatment was a 2-cycle freeze of the affected prostate part. Participants were evaluated with MRI-guided biopsy (MRGB) at baseline and at 6 months and 18 months after treatment. Absence of csPCa upon MRGB was the primary endpoint; quality-of-life at baseline and at 6 months after treatment was assessed by EPIC-CP questionnaires in the domains of urinary and sexual function.

RESULTS

Of the 143 participants, 136 (95%) completed MRGB at 6 months after treatment. In 103/136 (76%), the biopsy revealed no csPCa. Of the 103, 71 subsequently had an 18-month comprehensive biopsy; of the 71 with 18-month biopsies, 46 (65%) were found to have no csPCa. MRI lesions became undetectable in 96/130 (74%); declines in median serum PSA levels (6.9 to 2.5 ng/mL), PSA density (0.15 to 0.07), and prostate volume (42 to 34cc) were observed (all p < 0.01). Neither lesion disappearance on MRI nor PSA decline correlated with biopsy outcome. Urinary function was affected only slightly and sexual function moderately.

CONCLUSION

In the near to intermediate term, partial gland ablation with cryotherapy was found to be a safe and moderately effective treatment of intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Eradication of cancer was better determined by MRI-guided biopsy than by MRI or PSA.

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.

Outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy after initial irreversible electroporation treatment for recurrent prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate: (i) safety, (ii) feasibility, and medium-term (iii) oncological and (iv) functional outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) for recurrent localised prostate cancer (PCa) following initial focal therapy using irreversible electroporation (IRE).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An international, multicentre and retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients that underwent sRP for recurrent localised PCa after initial primary IRE treatment. Data were reported on (i) surgical complications, (ii) feasibility of sRP reported by surgeons, (iii) time interval between IRE and sRP and pathology results, and (iv) urinary continence, erectile function, and quality of life.

RESULTS

In four participating centres, a total of 39 patients with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age 64 (60-67) years were identified. No serious adverse events occurred during or following sRP and surgery was deemed feasible without difficulties. The median (IQR) time to recurrence following IRE was 14.3 (9.1-38.8) months. Pathology results showed localised disease in 21 patients (53.8%) and locally-advanced disease in 18 (46.2%). Positive surgical margins (PSMs) were observed in 10 patients (25.6%), of which six (15.4%) had significant PSMs. A persistent detectable prostate-specific antigen level was found in one case after sRP, caused by metastatic disease. One patient had a biochemical recurrence 6 months after sRP. These two cases, together with a PSM case, required additional therapy after sRP. After a median (IQR) follow-up of 17.7 (11.8-26.4) months, urinary continence and erectile function were preserved in 34 (94.4%) and 18 patients (52.9%), respectively, while quality of life remained stable.

CONCLUSIONS

Salvage RP is safe and feasible for patients with recurrent localised PCa following initial IRE treatment. The medium-term oncological and functional outcomes are similar to primary RP. Strict patient selection for focal therapy and standardised follow-up is needed as some patients developed high-grade disease.

Molecular biomarkers in the context of focal therapy for prostate cancer: recommendations of a Delphi Consensus from the Focal Therapy Society

BACKGROUND

Focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa) is promising. However, long-term oncological results are awaited and there is no consensus on follow-up strategies. Molecular biomarkers (MB) may be useful in selecting, treating and following up men undergoing FT, though there is limited evidence in this field to guide practice. We aimed to conduct a consensus meeting, endorsed by the Focal Therapy Society, amongst a large group of experts, to understand the potential utility of MB in FT for localized PCa.

METHODS

A 38-item questionnaire was built following a literature search. The authors then performed three rounds of a Delphi Consensus using DelphiManager, using the GRADE grid scoring system, followed by a face-to-face expert meeting. Three areas of interest were identified and covered concerning MB for FT, 1) the current/present role; 2) the potential/future role; 3) the recommended features for future studies. Consensus was defined using a 70% agreement threshold.

RESULTS

Of 95 invited experts, 42 (44.2%) completed the three Delphi rounds. Twenty-four items reached a consensus and they were then approved at the meeting involving (N.=15) experts. Fourteen items reached a consensus on uncertainty, or they did not reach a consensus. They were re-discussed, resulting in a consensus (N.=3), a consensus on a partial agreement (N.=1), and a consensus on uncertainty (N.=10). A final list of statements were derived from the approved and discussed items, with the addition of three generated statements, to provide guidance regarding MB in the context of FT for localized PCa. Research efforts in this field should be considered a priority.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study detailed an initial consensus on the use of MB in FT for PCa. This is until evidence becomes available on the subject.

Outcomes of Salvage Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy After Focal Ablation for Prostate Cancer in Comparison to Primary Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer is less invasive than radical treatment but carries a risk of recurrence. Salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (S-RARP) is a possible option after FT failure.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of FT on functional and oncological outcomes following S-RARP.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In a retrospective analysis of data from a prospectively collected institutional database, 53 patients who underwent S-RARP following failure of focal ablation were selected as group I; patients who had whole-gland ablation and external beam therapy were excluded. This group was matched to a control sample (matched at ratios of 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 1:4) of men who had undergone primary RARP, using age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA density, body mass index, Sexual Health Inventory for Men score, American Urological Association symptom score, Charlson comorbidity index, prostate weight, preoperative Gleason score (GS), and history of smoking as variables.

SURGICAL PROCEDURE

S-RARP after FT was performed using a standardized technique developed at our institute with the da Vinci Xi Surgical System.

MEASUREMENTS

Oncological and functional outcomes were compared between the S-RARP and primary RARP groups.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

There was no difference in estimated blood loss (p = 0.8) between the 1:1 matched groups, but operating room time was significantly longer for S-RARP (p = 0.007). The primary RARP group had a higher proportion of patients who underwent a full nerve-sparing procedure. The S-RARP group had higher incidence of positive surgical margins (40% vs 15%; p = 0.008), GS ≥8 (25% vs 15%; p = 0.07), and positive lymph node status (9.4% vs 5.7%; p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in overall complications between the groups. The primary RARP group had a higher incidence of lymphocele drainage after surgery (15% vs 0%; p = 0.006). The main limitation of the study is its retrospective design.

CONCLUSIONS

S-RALP after FT failure is feasible; however, surgery following FT leads to poorer oncological and functional outcomes. Despite the targeted nature of FT, significant nonfocal collateral damage is evident in tissues surrounding the prostate, which in turn translates to poorer functional outcomes after S-RARP.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We studied the surgical challenges during robot-assisted removal of the prostate after previous focal treatment (FT) for prostate cancer and compared the outcomes to those for robot-assisted prostate removal in patients who had no previous FT. We found that this technique is safe and effective with a limited risk of complications, but poor urinary and sexual functional outcomes.

Focal therapy: definition and rationale

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The role of focal therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer is expanding in clinical practice. The aim of this review is to introduce readers to controversies in the use of focal therapy and its rationale.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is a growing body of literature regarding the short-term and medium-term cancer control parameters and quality of life outcomes. These are mostly observational studies without a comparative arm. There is a need for high-quality randomize control trials comparing these treatments to definitive standard of care interventions (e.g. surgery or radiotherapy) in appropriate patient populations.

SUMMARY

Focal therapy for prostate cancer has become an established therapeutic strategy. Evidence continues to accrue regarding its effectiveness. It is a useful treatment option for the appropriately selected patient, with the appeal of improved quality of life compared with standard therapies.

Feasibility of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound guided high-dose-rate brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer: Preliminary results from a prospective study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate preliminary outcomes of a prospective trial of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided ultrafocal high-dose-rate brachytherapy in localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

In our prospective study, data from patients who underwent this treatment between April 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021 were analyzed. In the procedure, the applicator needle was inserted through the perineum to target the lesion on the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, which was fused onto the transrectal ultrasound image. The prescription dose was set at a single fraction of 19 Gy. Data from patients who received whole-gland high-dose-rate brachytherapy were extracted and compared with data from patients who received ultrafocal high-dose-rate brachytherapy, to evaluate the frequency of acute adverse events.

RESULTS

Eight patients underwent ultrafocal high-dose-rate brachytherapy with a median observation period of 7.75 months (range 5.96-15.36 months). No acute genitourinary or gastrointestinal adverse events were observed in this cohort. The planned procedure was completed in all patients, and no unexpected adverse events were observed; however, prostate-specific antigen failure was detected in one patient. In the 25 patients who underwent whole-gland high-dose-rate brachytherapy, acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal adverse events were observed in 88% and 20% of the patients, respectively. Ultrafocal high-dose-rate brachytherapy was a significant factor in avoiding acute adverse genitourinary events in univariate and multivariate analyses (P < 0.001 and P = 0.032, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided ultrafocal high-dose-rate brachytherapy in localized prostate cancer is a safe and feasible treatment without acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal adverse events. Long-term observation and further investigation are warranted.

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

Background

To report the feasibility, oncological and functional outcomes of salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (sRARP) for recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) after irreversible electroporation (IRE).

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent sRARP by a single high-volume surgeon after IRE treatment in our institution. Surgical complications, oncological and functional outcomes were assessed.

Results

15 patients with at least 12 months follow up were identified out of the 234 men who underwent primary IRE between 2013 and 2019. The median [IQR] age was 68 (62–70) years. The median [IQR] time from focal IRE to sRARP was 42 (21–57) months. There were no rectal, bladder or ureteric injuries. The T-stage was pT2 in 9 (60%) patients and pT3a in 6 (40%) patients. Only one (7%) patient had a positive surgical margin. At a median [IQR] follow up of 22 (16–32) months no patient had a biochemical recurrence (PSA > 0.2). All 15 patients were continent (pad-free) by 6 months and 9 (60%) patients had erections sufficient for intercourse with or without PDE5 inhibitors. No predisposing factors were identified for predicting erectile dysfunction after sRARP.

Conclusions

In patients with recurrent or residual significant PCa after focal IRE ablation it is feasible to obtain good functional and oncological outcomes with sRARP. Our results demonstrate that good outcomes can be achieved with sRARP, when respecting close monitoring post-IRE, good patient selection and surgical experience. The limitations of this study are that it is a small series, with short follow up and a lack of standardised quality of life instruments.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12894-022-00978-w.

High-Intensity Focused-Ultrasound Focal Therapy Versus Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: A Comparison of Oncological and Functional Outcomes in Low- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients

To compare oncological and functional outcomes of high-intensity focused-ultrasound (HIFU) focal therapy (FT) versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in patients treated for low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa), we retrospectively analyzed data of consecutive patients comprising 30 men, who underwent HIFU-FT, and 96 men who underwent LRP, in an academic center. Oncological outcomes were assessed based on the follow-up prostate-specific antigen values. We used the International Index of Erectile Function short form score to assess erectile function (EF). Urinary continence status was defined based on the number of pads used per day. Median follow-up was 12.5 and 19.1 months in the LRP and HIFU-FT groups, respectively. The effects were computed after propensity score matching and expressed as average treatment effect (ATE). Compared to LRP, HIFU-FT was associated with increased risk of treatment failure (ATE 0.103–0.164, depending on definition, p < 0.01) and lower risk of urinary incontinence (ATE −0.808 at 12 months, p < 0.01). Risk of erectile dysfunction was higher in the LRP group (ATE 5.092, p < 0.01). Our results demonstrate that HIFU-FT may be a reasonable treatment option in selected PCa patients, willing to preserve their EF and urinary continence yet accepting a higher risk of treatment failure.

Evolution of Focal Therapy in Prostate Cancer: Past, Present, and Future

Organ sparing approaches for the management of localized prostate cancer were developed in part to overcome the morbidity associated with standard, whole gland treatment options. The first description of focal therapy was now over two decades ago and since that time much has changed. The evolution of patient selection, the approach to ablation, and surveillance after focal therapy have mirrored the technologic advancements in the field as well as the improved understanding of the biology of low-grade, low-risk prostate cancer. This review presents the evidence for the basis of focal therapy from the past to the present and future endeavors.

Comparative Effectiveness Analyses of Salvage Prostatectomy and Salvage Radiotherapy Outcomes Following Focal or Whole-Gland Ablative Therapy (High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound, Cryotherapy or Electroporation) for Localised Prostate Cancer

AIMS

Ablative therapy, such as focal therapy, cryotherapy or electroporation, aims to treat clinically significant prostate cancer with reduced treatment-related toxicity. Up to a third of patients may require further local salvage treatment after ablative therapy failure. Limited descriptive, but no comparative, evidence exists between different salvage treatment outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare oncological and functional outcomes after salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (SRARP) and salvage radiotherapy (SRT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were collected prospectively and retrospectively on 100 consecutive SRARP cases and 100 consecutive SRT cases after ablative therapy failure in a high-volume tertiary centre.

RESULTS

High-risk patients were over-represented in the SRARP group (66.0%) compared with the SRT group (48.0%) (P = 0.013). The median (interquartile range) follow-up after SRARP was 16.5 (10.0-30.0) months and 37.0 (18.5-64.0) months after SRT. SRT appeared to confer greater biochemical recurrence-free survival at 1, 2 and 3 years compared with SRARP in high-risk patients (year 3: 86.3% versus 66.0%), but biochemical recurrence-free survival was similar for intermediate-risk patients (year 3: 90.0% versus 75.6%). There was no statistical difference in pad-free continence at 12 and 24 months between SRARP (77.2 and 84.7%) and SRT (75.0 and 74.0%) (P = 0.724, 0.114). Erectile function was more likely to be preserved in men who underwent SRT. After SRT, cumulative bowel and urinary Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity grade I were 25.0 and 45.0%, grade II were 11.0 and 11.0% and grade III or IV complications were 4.0 and 5.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

We report the first comparative analyses of salvage prostatectomy and radiotherapy following ablative therapy. Men with high-risk disease appear to have superior oncological outcomes after SRT; however, treatment allocation does not appear to influence oncological outcomes for men with intermediate-risk disease. Treatment allocation was associated with a different spectrum of toxicity profile. Our data may inform shared decision-making when considering salvage treatment following focal or whole-gland ablative therapy.

Salvage Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Following Focal High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound for ISUP 2/3 Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To report feasibility and outcome of salvage robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (S-RALP) after focal therapy using high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) treatment compared to primary robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (pRALP).

METHODS

In this bicentric trial patients undergoing S-RALP for detection of WHO2016/ISUP Grade Group 2 or 3 prostate cancer were previously treated in prospective focal HIFU trials. Perioperative data, complications, oncological and functional outcome were analysed. Patients who underwent pRALP were matched in a ratio 2_(pRALP):1_(S-RALP) according to preoperatively functional, oncological and clinical parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 39 patients were included in the study (13S-RALP, 26pRALP). Median operative time in the S-RALP group was 260minutes (pRALP: 257minutes), blood loss was 230ml (pRALP: 300ml). Complications occurred in 46.2% (6/13) of S-RALP patients (pRALP: 26.9%), including four Clavien-Dindo III complications (pRALP: 2/26). In S-RALP adverse histological outcome (≥pT3a, pN+ or R1) was detected in 23.1% (3/13) (pRALP: 26.9%). There was one patient with PSA-persistence (pRALP: 2/26). Regarding functional outcomes there was no difference between the two groups observed (incontinence P=.71, erectile function P=.21).

CONCLUSION

S-RALP should be offered to patients with an early relapse after focal HIFU. The early oncological outcome is satisfactory and functional outcome one year postoperatively is similar to pRALP. However, S-RALP is associated with a higher rate of Clavien-Dindo III complications (mainly, placement of a drainage), of which patients should be informed beforehand.

Salvage interstitial laser thermal therapy under MRI guidance (MRgFLA) for high-intensity focal ultrasound (HIFU) recurrences: feasibility study

While focal therapy (FT) is increasingly endorsed for treating localized prostate cancer in the appropriately selected patient, management of recurrences following FT is not well-established in the literature. This case series describes three patients who received high-intensity focal ultrasound (HIFU) for primary treatment followed by focal laser interstitial thermal therapy (FLTT) for salvage therapy treated in the context of an ongoing clinical trial. Evaluation of these reported patients demonstrates that FLTT is feasible in the salvage setting with promising short-term oncologic outcomes and with the potential to preserve functional outcomes. Repeat focal therapy for previous failures is feasible however, it requires sophisticated imaging modalities for the accurate identification of recurrence and treatment of the tumor.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

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

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

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

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PATIENT SUMMARY

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

Outcomes of the RAFT trial: robotic surgery after focal therapy

OBJECTIVES

To report toxicity of treatment observed in men participating in the Robotic surgery After Focal Therapy (RAFT) clinical trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Men were eligible for this prospective single group interventional study if they had histologically confirmed recurrent/residual prostate adenocarcinoma following primary FT. The short-form Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) measured prior to salvage robotic prostatectomy (S-RARP) and 3-monthly post-operatively together with Clavien-Dindo complications (I-IV). Secondary outcomes included biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCFS) following surgery and need for salvage treatment after surgery. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03011606.

RESULTS

Twenty-four men were recruited between February 2016 and September 2018. 1 patient withdrew from the trial after consenting and before S-RARP. 23 men completed 12-month post S-RARP follow-up. Median EPIC-26 urinary continence scores initially deteriorated after 3 months (82.4 vs 100) but there was no statistically significant difference from baseline at 12 months (100 vs 100, P = 0.31). Median lower urinary tract symptom scores improved after 12 months compared to baseline (93.8 vs 87.5, P = 0.01). At 12 months, 19/23 (83%) were pad-free and 22/23 (96%) required 0/1 pads. Median sexual function subscale scores deteriorated and remained low at 12 months (22.2 vs 58.3, P < 0.001). Utilising a minimally important difference of nine points, at 12 months after surgery 17/23 (74%) reported urinary continence to be 'better' or 'not different' to pre-operative baseline. The corresponding figure for sexual function (utilising a minimally important difference of 12 points) was 7/23 (30%). There was no statistically significant difference on median bowel/hormonal subscale scores. Only a single patient had a post-operative complication (Clavien-Dindo Grade I). BCFS at 12 months after surgery was 82.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 60.1-93.1%) while 4/23 (17%) received salvage radiation.

CONCLUSIONS

The RAFT clinical trial suggests toxicity of surgery after FT is low, with good urinary function outcomes, albeit sexual function deteriorated overall. Oncological outcomes at 12 months appear acceptable.

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.

MR-Guided High-Intensity Directional Ultrasound Ablation of Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this paper was to review the novel treatment modality of high-intensity transurethral directional ultrasound for prostate cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease with some patients electing for active surveillance and focal therapies instead of definitive treatment with radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. Prostate MRI has become a cornerstone of prostate cancer diagnosis, targeted biopsy, and treatment planning. Transurethral high-intensity directional ultrasound allows for MRI-guided ablation of the prostate gland with the ability to contour boundaries and spare critical structures, such as the neurovascular bundle and urinary sphincter. Although results are still emerging, this may offer patients a new option for focal therapy with a favorable side-effect profile. High-intensity transurethral directional ultrasound is an emerging treatment modality for both whole-gland and focal ablation with promising early results. Further research is needed to establish safety, tolerability, and long-term oncologic outcomes.

Making a case "for" focal therapy of the prostate in intermediate risk prostate cancer: current perspective and ongoing trials

Focal therapy is growing as an alternative management options for men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Parallel to the increasing popularity of active surveillance (AS) as a treatment for low-risk disease, there has been an increased interest towards providing focal therapy for patients with intermediate-risk disease. Focal therapy can act as a logical "middle ground" in patients who seek treatment while minimizing potential side effects of definitive whole-gland treatment. The aim of the current review is to define the rationale of focal therapy in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer and highlight the importance of patient selection in focal therapy candidacy.

Evaluation of Fluorescent Confocal Microscopy for Intraoperative Analysis of Prostate Biopsy Cores

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of prostate cancer is based on histopathological evaluation, which is time-consuming. Fluorescent confocal microscopy (FCM) is a novel technique that allows rapid tissue analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if FCM could be used for real-time diagnosis of prostate cancer and evaluate concordance with traditional analysis.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

From January 2019 to March 2020, 182 magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsy cores from 57 consecutive biopsy-naïve men with suspected prostate cancer were taken. These were intraoperatively stained with acridine orange for analysis using FCM (VivaScope; MAVIG, Munich, Germany) and subsequently sent for traditional haematoxylin-eosin histopathological (HEH) examination. Two expert uropathologists analysed the FCM and HEH cores blinded to the counterpart results in a single institution.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Agreement between FCM and HEH analysis in terms of the presence of cancer was analysed at biopsy core and region of interest (ROI) levels, considering HEH as the reference test.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

FCM allowed intraoperative assessment of prostate biopsy cores with strong histopathological evaluation agreement: Cohen's κ for agreement was 0.81 at the biopsy core level and 0.69 for the ROI level. Positive predictive values (85% and 83.78%) and negative predictive values (95.1% and 85.71%) were high at the biopsy core and ROI levels. These initial results are encouraging, but given the single-centre and preliminary nature of the study, further confirmation is required.

CONCLUSIONS

FCM allowed rapid evaluation of prostate biopsy cores. This technique is feasible and achieves rapid closure with a reliable diagnosis, parallel to the gold standard analysis. Initial results are promising but further studies are needed to validate and define the role of this technique.

PATIENT SUMMARY

A novel microscopic technique reduces the time needed to obtain a prostate cancer diagnosis by speeding up biopsy processing. Although the initial results are promising; this development needs to be confirmed in further studies.

Focal therapy, time to join the multi-disciplinary team discussion?

Organ preserving management is common place in renal cancer, breast cancer and many other solid organ tumours. Current strategies in managing intermediate risk prostate cancer include either whole gland treatment, in the form of radical radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy, or active surveillance. The former is associated with significant post-treatment functional morbidity, whilst the latter associated with the burden of surveillance activity and patient anxiety. Focal therapy would logically fit as a middle ground for suitable patients in whom treatment would be recommended, but where much better functional outcomes may be possible. Ideally this comes without restricting the successful prevention of harm from the cancer. Historically limitations in developing tissue preserving focal therapy strategies in prostate cancer, were due to inaccuracies in tumour characterisation prior to treatment and during follow up. Consequently for example many patients undergoing an active surveillance strategy were being upgraded and upstaged within a short period. Recently high level evidence supporting the use of MRI and targeted biopsies, in particular the PROMIS and PRECISION trials have strengthened clinician confidence in accurate disease characterisation, thus making focal therapy to become a more feasible management option. With improved diagnostic strategies and the publication of reassuring medium term oncological and functional outcomes after focal therapy for intermediate risk prostate cancer, has the time come to require consideration of focal therapy within our multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meetings and with patients? In this review we will consider patient selection and the evidence for the various focal ablation options as well as the surveillance of these patients after treatment. The forthcoming trials to determine comparative effectiveness will be discussed.

High-intensity focused ultrasound for prostate cancer

High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is a noninvasive procedure that has shown promising results in a wide range of malignant and nonmalignant conditions, including localized prostate cancer (PCa). This review aims to describe the application of HIFU in the management of patients with PCa, explaining its basic therapeutic principles, going through the main phases during aHIFU session, and providing an overview of the main available pieces of evidence from literature. HIFU treatment for prostate cancer is increasingly performed with high success and safety. MR guidance (MR-guided HIFU) has the advantage of real-time intraprocedural thermometric feedback that ensures that the whole region of interest has been covered by critical thermal damage (and that all surrounding healthy tissues have been spared). The absence of comparative long-term trials prevents HIFU from being considered as afirst choice for the treatment of patients with PCa.

Peri-operative, functional and early oncologic outcomes of salvage robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy after high-intensity focused ultrasound partial ablation

BACKGROUND

Partial ablation of the prostate using high-intensity focussed ultrasound (HIFU-PA) is a treatment option for localised prostate cancer. When local recurrence occurs, salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is a treatment option for selected patients, but there is a paucity of data on the peri-operative safety, functional and oncologic outcomes of sRARP.. The objective of this study was therefore to describe peri-operative safety, functional and early oncologic outcomes following salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (sRARP) for local recurrence after HIFU-PA.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of a prospective database of 53 consecutive men who underwent sRARP after HIFU-PA from 2012 to 2018. Continence and erectile-function were reported pre-HIFU, pre-sRARP, 3-months post-sRARP and 12-months post-sRARP. Complications, PSMs and need for subsequent ADT/radiotherapy were assessed.

RESULTS

45 men were suitable for inclusion and had sufficient data for analyses. Median duration from HIFU to sRARP was 30.0 months and median follow-up post-sRARP was 17.7 months. Median age, PSA and ISUP group were 63.0 yrs., 7.2 ng/mL and 2; 88.9% were cT2. Median operative-console time, blood loss and hospital stay were 140 min, 200 ml and 1 day respectively. Clavien-Dindo grade 1, 2 and 3 complications < 90 days occurred in 8.9, 6.7 and 2.2%; late (>90d) complications occurred in 13.2%. At sRARP pathology, ISUP 3-5 occurred in 51.1%, pT3a/b in 64.5%, and PSMs in 44.4% (37.5% for pT2, 48.3% for pT3). Of men with > 3-months follow-up after sRARP, 26.3% underwent adjuvant radiotherapy/ADT for residual disease or adverse pathologic features; 5.3% experienced BCR requiring salvage ADT/radiotherapy. Freedom from ADT/radiotherapy was 66.7% at 12-months. Pad-free rates were 100% pre-HIFU, 95.3% post-HIFU, 29.4% 3-months post-sRARP, and 65.5% 12-months post-sRARP. Median IIEF-5 scores pre-HIFU, post-HIFU, 3- and 12-months post-sRARP were 23.5, 16, 5 and 5, respectively. Potency rates were 81.8, 65.5, 0 and 0%, respectively. Bilateral/unilateral nerve sparing were feasible in 7%/22%.

CONCLUSION

Salvage RARP was safe with acceptable but sub-optimal continence and poor sexual-function and poor oncologic outcomes. One in three men required additional treatment within 12-months. This information may aid men and urologists with treatment selection and counselling regarding primary HIFU-PA vs primary RARP and when considering salvage RARP.

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.

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.

Salvage radical prostatectomy following focal therapy: functional and oncological outcomes

OBJECTIVES

To report the oncological and functional outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) after focal therapy (FT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients who underwent sRP after FT was performed. Clinical and pathological outcomes focussed on surgical complications, oncological, and functional outcomes.

RESULTS

In all, 34 patients were identified. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 61 (8.25) years. FT modalities included high-intensity focussed ultrasound (19 patients), laser ablation (13), focal brachytherapy (one) and cryotherapy (one). The median (IQR) time from FT to recurrence was 10.9 (17.6) months. There were no rectal or ureteric injuries. Two (5.9%) patients had iatrogenic cystotomies and four (11.8%) developed bladder neck contractures. The mean (sd) hospital stay was 2.5 (2.1) days. The T-stage was pT2 in 14 (41.2%) patients, pT3a in 16 (47.1%), and pT3b in four (11.8%). In all, 13 (38%) patients had positive surgical margins (PSMs). Six (17.6%) patients received adjuvant radiotherapy (RT). At a mean follow-up of 4.3 years, seven (20.6%) patients developed biochemical recurrence (BCR), and of these, six (17.6%) patients required salvage RT. PSMs were associated with worse BCR-free survival (hazard ratio 6.624, 95% confidence interval 2.243-19.563; P < 0.001). The median (IQR) preoperative International Prostate Symptom Score and International Index of Erectile Function score was 7 (4.5-9.5) and 23.5 (15.75-25) respectively, while in the final follow-up the median (IQR) values were 7 (3.5-11) and 6 (5-12.25), respectively (P = 0.088 and P < 0.001). At last follow-up, 31 (91.2%) patients were continent, two (5.9%) had moderate (>1 pad/day) incontinence, and one (2.9%) required an artificial urinary sphincter.

CONCLUSIONS

sRP should be considered as an option for patients who have persistent clinically significant prostate cancer or recurrence after FT. PSMs should be recognised as a risk for recurrent disease after sRP.

[Percutaneous MR-guided prostate cancer cryoablation: Predictive factors and oncologic outcomes]

OBJECTIVE

To determine the pejorative predictive factors on oncologic outcomes of percutaneous MR-guided whole gland prostate cancer cryoablation (CA).

METHODS

Medical records of patients treated from 2009 to 2012, to assess medium-term oncologic outcomes, were reviewed. Prostate biopsies were performed in local recurrence suspicion (biochemical failure, MR follow-up failure).

RESULTS

Among 18 patients, mean age of 72.6 (61-78), 2 (11 %) and 7 (38.9 %) biological and reported biopsy-proven local recurrence respectively with our initial technic of CA. Mean follow-up and recurrence were 56.3 (±21.7) and 20.7 (±13.9) months respectively. A previous treatment of prostate cancer (P=0.5), pre-treatment PSA (P=0.2), pre-treatment Gleason/ISUP score (P=0.4), nadir PSA post-CA (P=0.22) were not associated with recurrence. Bilateral positive cores appears as a pejorative predictive factor (P=0.04). However mean pre-treatment positive cores percentage, 25 (±16.5) in responding patients versus 40.7 (±25.2) in case of recurrence, and maximum percentage of cancer extent in each positive core, 10.6 (±9.3) in responding patients versus 18.7 (±16.5) in case of recurrence, seemed associated with local recurrence after prostate CA but our analysis wasn't able to find a difference (P=0.09 and P=0.3 respectively) due to a lack of power.

CONCLUSION

Bilateral positive cores appears as a pejorative predictive factor. In our experience, important tumor volume seem to be a pejorative predictive factor for oncologic outcomes after PCA whereas treatment, PSA, Gleason/ISUP score, nadir PSA are not.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Comparison of outcomes of salvage robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for post-primary radiation vs focal therapy

OBJECTIVES

To compare salvage robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) outcomes in patients who underwent radiation and those who underwent focal ablation as primary therapies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We evaluated 126 patients who underwent salvage RALPbetween 2008 and 2018. Of these, 94 (74.6%) received radiation and 32 focal ablation (25.4%) as primary therapy. These groups were compared with regard to clinical, oncological and functional outcomes. Kaplan-Meier curves and regression models were used to identify survival estimations and their predictors.

RESULTS

Before surgery, more patients were potent in the focal ablation group compared to the radiation group (46.9% vs 22.6%; P = 0.013). Peri-operative characteristics and complication rates were not significantly different between the two groups. Postoperative catheterization duration was shorter in the focal ablation group (mean 10 vs 16 days; P = 0.018). At final pathology, the focal ablation group had higher non-organ-confined disease (71% vs 50%; P = 0.042) and positive surgical margin (PSM) rates (43.8% vs 17%; P = 0.004) as compared to the radiation group; however, 5-year biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival rates were similar (59% vs 56%; P = 0.761). Postoperative 1-year full (no pads/day) and social (0-1 pad/day) continence rates were significantly higher in the focal ablation as compared to the radiation group (77.3% vs 39.2%, P = 0.002, and 87.5% vs 51.3%, P = 0.002, respectively). Multivariate analyses showed primary focal ablation and nerve-sparing to be predictors of postoperative continence. Erectile function was preserved in 13% and 27% of preoperatively potent patients in the radiation and focal ablation groups, respectively (P = 0.435). No predictors were identified for postoperative potency.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiation was associated with inferior functional outcomes after salvage RALP. Focal therapies were associated with higher non-organ-confined disease and PSMrates, with no significant difference in short-term BCR-free survival.