Can the conventional sextant prostate biopsy accurately predict unilateral prostate cancer in low-risk, localized, prostate cancer?

Role of multiparametric prostate MRI in the management of prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer has traditionally been diagnosed by an elevation in PSA or abnormal exam leading to a systematic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy. This diagnostic pathway underdiagnoses clinically significant disease while over diagnosing clinically insignificant disease. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of the recent literature regarding the role of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in the management of prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A thorough literature review was performed using PubMed to identify articles discussing use of mpMRI of the prostate in management of prostate cancer.

CONCLUSION

The incorporation of mpMRI of the prostate addresses the shortcomings of the prostate biopsy while providing several other advantages. mpMRI allows some men to avoid an immediate biopsy and permits visualization of areas likely to harbor clinically significant cancer prior to biopsy to facilitate use of MR-targeted prostate biopsies. This allows for reduction in diagnosis of clinically insignificant disease as well as improved detection and better characterization of higher risk cancers, as well as the improved selection of patients for active surveillance. In addition, mpMRI can be used for selection and monitoring of patients for active surveillance and treatment planning during surgery and focal therapy.

Use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in localized prostate cancer

Introduction: Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is commonly used for localized disease mainly to detect intraprostatic lesions and to guide biopsies. Despite its documented success in clinical practice, limitations still exist for prostate MRI. In this review, we discuss common clinical uses of prostate MRI, its limitations, and potential solutions for those limitations.Areas covered: Current uses of prostate MRI and challenges discussed. Literature search in PubMed was completed using the keywords "prostate MRI, prostate cancer."Expert opinion: Prostate MRI is a useful method for localization, biopsy, and treatment guidance of prostate cancer. Certain limitations of prostate MRI such as false negatives due to spatial resolution and relatively low repeatability between different radiologists can potentially be solved by investing more on education training and artificial intelligence technology.

First-in-human study of anticancer immunotherapy drug candidate mobilan: safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in prostate cancer patients

Toll-like receptor 5 (TLR5) controls endogenous immune responses to pathogens and is a promising target for pharmacological stimulation of anti-tumor immunity. Mobilan is an innovative gene therapy agent consisting of a non-replicating bicistronic adenovirus directing constitutive expression of human Toll-like receptor 5 (TLR5) and the secreted flagellin-based TLR5 agonist, 502s. In mice, Mobilan injection into prostate tumors resulted in autocrine TLR5 signaling, immune system activation, and suppression of tumor growth and metastasis. Here we report a first-in-human placebo-controlled clinical study of Mobilan aimed at evaluating safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a single intra-prostate injection of Mobilan in early stage prostate cancer patients. Mobilan was safe and well-tolerated at all tested doses; thus, the maximum tolerated dose was not identified. Injection of Mobilan induced signs of self-resolving inflammation not present in placebo-injected patients, including transient elevation of PSA and cytokine (G-CSF, IL-6) levels, and increased lymphoid infiltration in prostate tissue. The highest dose of Mobilan (10¹¹ viral particles) produced the best combination of safety and pharmacodynamic effects. Therefore, Mobilan is well-tolerated and induces the expected pharmacodynamic response in humans. These results support further clinical development of Mobilan as a novel immunotherapy for prostate cancer.

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.

Do contemporary imaging and biopsy techniques reliably identify unilateral prostate cancer? Implications for hemiablation patient selection

BACKGROUND

Hemiablation is a less morbid treatment alternative for appropriately selected patients with unilateral prostate cancer (PCa). However, to the authors' knowledge, traditional diagnostic techniques inadequately identify appropriate candidates. In the current study, the authors quantified the accuracy for identifying hemiablation candidates using contemporary diagnostic techniques, including multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and MRI-fusion with complete systematic template biopsy.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing MRI and MRI-fusion prostate biopsy, including full systematic template biopsy, prior to radical prostatectomy in a single tertiary academic institution between June 2010 and February 2018 was performed. Hemiablation candidates had unilateral intermediate-risk PCa (Gleason score [GS] of 3+4 or 4+3, clinical T classification ≤T2, and prostate-specific antigen level <20 ng/dL) on MRI-fusion biopsy and 2) no contralateral highly or very highly suspicious Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) MRI lesions. Hemiablation candidates were inappropriately selected if pathologists identified contralateral GS ≥3+4 or high-risk ipsilateral PCa on prostatectomy. The authors tested a range of hemiablation inclusion criteria and performed multivariable analysis of preoperative predictors of undetected contralateral disease.

RESULTS

Of 665 patients, 92 met primary hemiablation criteria. Of these 92 patients, 44 (48%) were incorrectly identified due to ipsilateral GS ≥3+4 tumors crossing the midline (21 patients), undetected distinct contralateral GS ≥3+4 tumors (20 patients), and/or ipsilateral high-risk PCa (3 patients) on prostatectomy. The rate of undetected contralateral disease ranged from 41% to 48% depending on inclusion criteria. On multivariable analysis, men with anterior index tumors were found to be 2.4 times more likely to harbor undetected contralateral GS ≥3+4 PCa compared with men with posterior lesions (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians and patients must weigh the risk of inadequate oncologic treatment against the functional benefits of hemiablation. Further investigation into methods for improving patient selection for hemiablation is necessary.

Focal application of low-dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer: a pilot study

Purpose

To evaluate the feasibility and to report the early outcomes of focal treatment of prostate cancer using low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-PB).

Material and methods

Seventeen patients were screened with multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), 14 of whom proceeded to receive trans-perineal template mapping biopsy (TTMB). Focal LDR-PB was performed on five eligible patients using dual air kerma strength treatment plans based on planning target volumes derived from cancer locations and determined by TTMB. Patient follow-up includes prostate specific antigen (PSA) measurements, urinary and sexual function questionnaires, repeated imaging and TTMB at specific intervals post-treatment.

Results

Feasibility of focal LDR-PB was shown and short-term outcomes are promising. While the detection rate of tumors, a majority of which were low grade GS 3 + 3, was found to be low on mpMRI (sensitivity of 37.5%), our results suggest the potential of mpMRI in detecting the presence of higher grade (GS ≥ 3 + 4), and bilateral disease indicating its usefulness as a screening tool for focal LDR-PB.

Conclusions

Low-dose-rate brachytherapy is a favorable ablation option for focal treatment of prostate cancer, requiring minimal modification to the standard (whole gland) LDR-PB treatment, and appears to have a more favorable side effect profile. Further investigation, in the form of a larger study, is needed to assess the methods used and the long-term outcomes of focal LDR-PB.

Poor standard mp-MRI and routine biopsy fail to precisely predict intraprostatic tumor localization

PURPOSE

To evaluate the localization accuracy of routinely performed preoperative multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI), not being assessed according to PI-RADS criteria.

METHODS

One hundred and six patients underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy (January 2011-June 2012) with preoperative MRI. Intraprostatic tumor localization suggested by mp-MRI was correlated to both biopsy and histopathology results.

RESULTS

Sensitivity and specificity were as low as 25-62 and 60-94 %, respectively. Neither higher field force nor the use of an endorectal coil could enhance accuracy. There was no statistically significant concordance in any sextant. The mean number of correctly identified sextants was between 3.11 and 4.00 and, thus, insignificantly above the value of 3 that one would obtain by tossing the coin. For transrectal biopsies, sensitivity and specificity of tumor localization were 52-63 and 46-80 %, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither routinely performed "non-PI-RADS" MRI nor transrectal biopsy can accurately localize prostate cancer. Focal therapy concepts rely on a precise intraprostatic tumor detection and therefore inevitably require PI-RADS assessment by radiologists with genitourinary specialization. Regarding patient discomfort and costs, "non-PI-RADS" MRIs of the prostate are not justified.

Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy for predicting the final laterality of prostate cancer: are they reliable enough to select patients for focal therapy? Results from a multicenter international study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the concordance of prostate cancer (PCa) laterality between the extended transperineal (TP) or transrectal (TR) prostate biopsy (BP) and radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens. To identify predictors of laterality agreement between BP and RP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from 533 consecutive patients with PCa (278 TP and 255 TR-diagnosed) treated with RP were analyzed. A 12-core technique was used for both TP and TR biopsies. Additional cores were obtained when necessary.

RESULTS

Overall, the percentage of agreement of PCa laterality between BP and RP was 60% (K = 0.27, p < 0.001). However, the RP confirmation of unilaterality at BP was obtained in just 33% of the cases. Considering the concordance on bilaterality as the ″target″ of our analysis, the sensitivity and specificity were 54.3% and 98.2% , respectively, with TP and 47.5% and 92.5%, respectively with TR. Focusing on patients with unilaterality at biopsy, none of the evaluated preoperative variables (biopsy technique, age, total positive biopsy cores, PSA, prostate volume, Gleason score on biopsy) were able to predict RP bilaterality in the multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the patients with unilateral involvement at BP harbored bilateral PCa after RP. TR and TP biopsy showed no difference in their capacity to predict the concordance of tumor laterality at RP. None of the preoperative evaluated variables can predict the tumor laterality at RP. Using BP unilaterality to include patients in focal therapy (FT) protocols may hinder the oncologic efficacy of FT.

Comparison of transperineal mapping biopsy results with whole-mount radical prostatectomy pathology in patients with localized prostate cancer

Objective. We sought to evaluate the accuracy of transperineal mapping biopsy (TMB) by comparing it to the pathology specimen of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) for localized prostate cancer. Methods. From March 2007 to September 2009, 78 men at a single center underwent TMB; 17 of 78 subsequently underwent RP. TMB cores were grouped into four quadrants and matched to data from RP whole-mount slides. Gleason score, tumor location and volume, cross-sectional area, and maximal diameter were measured; sensitivity and specificity were assessed. Results. For the 17 patients who underwent RP, TMB revealed 12 (71%) had biopsy Gleason grades ≥ 3 + 4 and 13 (76%) had bilateral disease. RP specimens showed 14 (82%) had Gleason scores ≥ 3 + 4 and 13 (76%) had bilateral disease. Sensitivity and specificity of TMB for prostate cancer detection were 86% (95% confidence interval [CI] 72%-94%) and 83% (95% CI 62%-95%), respectively. Four quadrants negative for cancer on TMB were positive on prostatectomy, and six positive on TMB were negative on prostatectomy. Conclusion. TMB is a highly invasive procedure that can accurately detect and localize prostate cancer. These findings help establish baseline performance characteristics for TMB and its utility for organ-sparing strategies.

[Focal therapy and prostate cancer]

The International Task Force on Prostate Cancer defines focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa) as the therapy that "selectively ablates known disease and preserves existing functions, with the overall objective of minimizing lifetime morbidity without compromising life expectancy". FT for the treatment of PCa has been called the "male lumpectomy", an analogue to women's breast lumpectomy for the treatment of breast cancer. Radical prostatectomy continues to be the most frequently performed treatment for localized PCa, as anatomic knowledge and several technical advances, i.e. the introduction of robotic assisted surgery, have led to successful oncological outcome and lower rates of post-treatment morbidity. However, a proportion of patients still experiences a no negligible sexual, urinary, and bowel morbidity. Although the rationale of active surveillance for low-risk PCa (PSA <10 ng/mL, Gleason grade 6 or less, and clinical stage T1c-T2a) is sound, only few of newly diagnosed patients elect this approach. Thus, in the recent years the concept of a "subtotal therapy" gained the interest of some urological schools. The aim of this paper is to review the existing literature in order to provide the status of art on FT for PCa. The manuscript will focus on the characteristics of the target population, on the pre-operative evaluation to localise disease, as well as on perioperative, functional, and disease-control following focal therapy.

Focal therapy in prostate cancer: international multidisciplinary consensus on trial design

BACKGROUND

Focal therapy has been introduced for the treatment of localised prostate cancer (PCa). To provide the necessary data for consistent assessment, all focal therapy trials should be performed according to uniform, systematic pre- and post-treatment evaluation with well-defined end points and strict inclusion and exclusion criteria.

OBJECTIVE

To obtain consensus on trial design for focal therapy in PCa.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A four-staged consensus project based on a modified Delphi process was conducted in which 48 experts in focal therapy of PCa participated. According to this formal consensus-building method, participants were asked to fill out an iterative sequence of questionnaires to collect data on trial design. Subsequently, a consensus meeting was held in which 13 panellists discussed acquired data, clarified the results, and defined the conclusions.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

A multidisciplinary board from oncologic centres worldwide reached consensus on patient selection, pretreatment assessment, evaluation of outcome, and follow-up.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Inclusion criteria for candidates in focal therapy trials are patients with prostate-specific antigen <15 ng/ml, clinical stage T1c-T2a, Gleason score 3+3 or 3+4, life expectancy of >10 yr, and any prostate volume. The optimal biopsy strategy includes transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies to be taken between 6 mo and 12 mo after treatment. The primary objective should be focal ablation of clinically significant disease with negative biopsies at 12 mo after treatment as the primary end point.

CONCLUSIONS

This consensus report provides a standard for designing a feasible focal therapy trial.

PATIENT SUMMARY

A variety of ablative technologies have been introduced and applied in a focal manner for the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa). In this consensus report, an international panel of experts in the field of PCa determined pre- and post-treatment work-up for focal therapy research.

Prostate cancer tumour features on template prostate-mapping biopsies: implications for focal therapy

Background

Focal therapy is being offered as a viable alternative for men with localised prostate cancer (PCa), but it is unclear which men may be suitable.

Objective

To determine the proportion of men with localised PCa who are potentially suitable for focal therapy.

Design, setting, and participants

Our institutional transperineal template prostate-mapping (TTPM) biopsy registry of 377 men from 2006 to 2010 identified 291 consecutive men with no prior treatment.

Intervention

TTPM biopsies using a 5-mm sampling frame.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Suitability for focal therapy required the cancer to be (1) unifocal, (2) unilateral, (3) bilateral/bifocal with at least one neurovascular bundle avoided, or (4) bilateral/multifocal with one dominant index lesion and secondary lesions with Gleason ≤3 + 3 and cancer core involvement ≤3 mm. Binary logistic regression modelling was used to determine variables predictive for focal therapy suitability.

Results and limitations

The median age was 61 yr, and the median prostate-specific antigen was 6.8 ng/ml. The median total was 29 cores, with a median of 8 positive cores. Of 239 of 291 men with cancer, 29% (70 men), 60% (144 men), and 8% (20 men) had low-, intermediate-, and high-risk PCa, respectively. Ninety-two percent (220 men) were suitable for one form of focal therapy: hemiablation (22%, 53 men), unifocal ablation (31%, 73 men), bilateral/bifocal ablation (14%, 33 men), and index lesion ablation (26%, 61 men). Binary logistic regression modelling incorporating transrectal biopsy parameters showed no statistically significant predictive variable. When incorporating TTPM parameters, only T stage was a significant negative predictor for suitability (p = 0.001) (odds ratio: 0.001 [95% confidence interval, 0.000–0.048]). Limitations of the study include potential selection bias caused by tertiary referral practise and lack of long-term results on focal therapy efficacy.

Conclusions

Focal therapy requires an accurate tool to localise individual cancer lesions. When such a test, TTPM biopsy, was applied to men with low- and intermediate-risk PCa, most of the men were suitable for a tissue preservation strategy.

The role of focal therapy in the management of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review

CONTEXT

The incidence of localised prostate cancer is increasing worldwide. In light of recent evidence, current, radical, whole-gland treatments for organ-confined disease have being questioned with respect to their side effects, cancer control, and cost. Focal therapy may be an effective alternative strategy.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the existing literature on baseline characteristics of the target population; preoperative evaluation to localise disease; and perioperative, functional, and disease control outcomes following focal therapy.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Medline (through PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Review databases were searched from inception to 31 October 2012. In addition, registered but not yet published trials were retrieved. Studies evaluating tissue-preserving therapies in men with biopsy-proven prostate cancer in the primary or salvage setting were included.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 2350 cases were treated to date across 30 studies. Most studies were retrospective with variable standards of reporting, although there was an increasing number of prospective registered trials. Focal therapy was mainly delivered to men with low and intermediate disease, although some high-risk cases were treated that had known, unilateral, significant cancer. In most of the cases, biopsy findings were correlated to specific preoperative imaging, such as multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging or Doppler ultrasound to determine eligibility. Follow-up varied between 0 and 11.1 yr. In treatment-naïve prostates, pad-free continence ranged from 95% to 100%, erectile function ranged from 54% to 100%, and absence of clinically significant cancer ranged from 83% to 100%. In focal salvage cases for radiotherapy failure, the same outcomes were achieved in 87.2-100%, 29-40%, and 92% of cases, respectively. Biochemical disease-free survival was reported using a number of definitions that were not validated in the focal-therapy setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review highlights that, when focal therapy is delivered with intention to treat, the perioperative, functional, and disease control outcomes are encouraging within a short- to medium-term follow-up. Focal therapy is a strategy by which the overtreatment burden of the current prostate cancer pathway could be reduced, but robust comparative effectiveness studies are now required.

The feasibility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for targeted biopsy using novel navigation systems to detect early stage prostate cancer: the preliminary experience

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The feasibility and diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) has to be proven further. In this study, we evaluate the role of mp-MRI for targeted biopsy of early stage prostate cancer (PCa).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total 32 consecutive patients with transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided biopsy-proven PCa meeting low-risk criteria and pursuing active surveillance were selected to undergo mp-MRI 3 Tesla (3T) with endorectal coil. Patients were divided then into three groups based on the method used to target the mp-MRI designated region of interest (ROI): Group 1 underwent TRUS-guided prostate biopsy using an MRI-based coordinate plan (cognitive targeting). Group 2 underwent MRI-targeted TRUS-guided prostate biopsy using MyLabTMTwice, which superimposed the archived MRI images onto the real-time ultrasonography image allowing targeted biopsy of the ROI (fusion targeting). Group 3 included selected patients who had an elevation in prostate-specific antigen levels, or patients followed after radiation therapy (two patients) for suspicious unifocal MRI lesion recurrence. These patients underwent MRI-guided biopsy of the suspicious ROI using the navigation system DynaTRIM.

RESULTS

The cancer detection rate in group 1 was 33.3% (3 of 10 patients), while in group 2, it was significantly higher at 46.2%. The sensitivity and specificity for group 1 was 45.5% and 33.3%, vs 61.9% and 20.8% in group 2, respectively. The positive predictive value in group 1 was 50.0% vs 53.8% in group 2 (P=0.04). In group 3, the cancer detection rate was much higher (80%) than in group 2, (P=0.005) although the majority of these patients (7 of 10) had a previously diagnosed prostate cancer on TRUS-guided 12-core biopsy.

CONCLUSION

Our preliminary experience of mp-MRI suggests the detection of early stage prostate cancer with low-risk features yields potential candidates for active surveillance or focal targeted therapy. The MRI-TRUS fusion system increases diagnostic yield compared with cognitive MRI-directed TRUS-guided biopsy.

Parameters predicting postoperative unilateral disease in patients with unilateral prostate cancer in diagnostic biopsy: a rationale for selecting hemiablative focal therapy candidates

BACKGROUND

Focal hemiablative therapy for prostate cancer is a new treatment alternative. Unilateral and unifocal disease are its main limitations. The aim of this study was to identify the epidemiological, clinical and pathological parameters that may predict unilateral disease in patients diagnosed with prostate cancer.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of patients at our institution between January 2005 and January 2011. Only patients with unilateral disease in prostate biopsy were part of the study. The analysis included age, preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and its density, prostate volume, biopsy first and second Gleason pattern and Gleason summary, number of biopsy cores, percentage of cancer in biopsy material and the presence of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Their role as potential predictors was evaluated by univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 161 patients had unilateral disease after prostate biopsy. A significant correlation was found between prostate volume, PSA density and percentage of cancer in biopsy material and the presence of unilateral disease in the surgical specimen. These are the same factors significant in the univariate analysis. The results of the multivariate analysis demonstrated that PSA density (p = 0.015) and percentage of cancer in biopsy material (p = 0.028) are the most significant predictors.

INTERPRETATION

Our results demonstrate that PSA density and the percentage of cancer in biopsy cores are significant predictors for prostate cancer unilaterality and should be considered for the selection of hemiablative focal therapy candidates.

Are we able to correctly identify prostate cancer patients who could be adequately treated by focal therapy?

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Because of the improvements on detection of early stage prostate cancer over the last decade, focal therapy for localized prostate cancer (PC) has been proposed for patients with low-risk disease. Such treatment would allow the control of cancer, thereby diminishing side effects, such as urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction, which have an enormous impact on quality of life. The critical issue is whether it is possible to preoperatively predict clinically significant unifocal or unilateral prostate cancer with sufficient accuracy. Our aim is to determine whether there is any preoperative feature that can help select the ideal patient for focal therapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 599 patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy followed by radical prostatectomy to treat PC were examined in our laboratory between 2001 and 2009. We established very restricted criteria to select patients with very-low-risk disease for whom focal therapy would be suitable (only 1 biopsy core positive, tumor no larger than 80% of a single core, no perineural invasion, PSA serum level < 10 ng/ml, Gleason score < 7 and clinical stage T1c, T2a-b). We defined 2 groups of patients who would be either adequately treated or not treated by focal therapy. The primary endpoint was the evaluation of preoperative features in order to identify which parameters should be considered when choosing good candidates for focal therapy.

RESULTS

Fifty-six out of 599 patients met our criteria. The mean age was 59 years, and the mean number of biopsy cores was 14.4. Forty-seven (83.9%) were staged T1c, and 9 (16.1%) were staged T2a-b. Forty-four (78.6%) patients could be considered to have been adequately treated by focal therapy, and 12 (21.4%) could not. There was no statistical difference between the 2 groups considering age, clinical stage, PSA levels, Gleason score, and tumor volume in the biopsy. All 12 patients who could be considered inadequately treated had a bilateral, significant secondary tumor, 58.3% had Gleason ≥ 7, and 25% were staged pT3.

CONCLUSION

Although focal therapy might be a good option for patients with localized prostate cancer, we are so far unable to select which of them would benefit from it based on preoperative data, even using very restricted criteria, and a considerable proportion of men would still be left undertreated.

Beyond diagnosis: evolving prostate biopsy in the era of focal therapy

Despite decades of use as the “gold standard” in the detection of prostate cancer, the optimal biopsy regimen is still not universally agreed upon. While important aspects such as the need for laterally placed biopsies and the importance of apical cancer are known, repeated studies have shown significant patients with cancer on subsequent biopsy when the original biopsy was negative and an ongoing suspicion of cancer remained. Attempts to maximise the effectiveness of repeat biopsies have given rise to the alternate approaches of saturation biopsy and the transperineal approach. Recent interest in focal treatment of prostate cancer has further highlighted the need for accurate detection of prostate cancer, and in response, the introduction of transperineal template-guided biopsy. While the saturation biopsy approach and the transperineal template approach increase the detection rate of cancer in men with a previous negative biopsy and appear to have acceptable morbidity, there is a lack of clinical trials evaluating the different biopsy strategies. This paper reviews the evolution of prostatic biopsy and current controversies.

Focal therapy for prostate cancer: possibilities and limitations

CONTEXT

A significant proportion of patients diagnosed with prostate cancer have well-differentiated, low-volume tumors at minimal risk of impacting their quality of life or longevity. The selection of a treatment strategy, among the multitude of options, has enormous implications for individuals and health care systems.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to review the rationale, patient selection criteria, diagnostic imaging, biopsy schemes, and treatment modalities available for the focal therapy of localized prostate cancer. We gave particular emphasis to the conceptual possibilities and limitations.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A National Center for Biotechnology Information PubMed search (www.pubmed.gov) was performed from 1995 to 2009 using medical subject headings "focal therapy" or "ablative" and "prostate cancer." Additional articles were extracted based on recommendations from an expert panel of authors.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Focal therapy of the prostate in patients with low-risk cancer characteristics is a proposed treatment approach in development that aims to eradicate all known foci of cancer while minimizing damage to adjacent structures necessary for the preservation of urinary, sexual, and bowel function. Conceptually, focal therapy has the potential to minimize treatment-related toxicity without compromising cancer-specific outcome. Limitations include the inability to stage or grade the cancer(s) accurately, suboptimal imaging capabilities, uncertainty regarding the natural history of untreated cancer foci, challenges with posttreatment monitoring, and the lack of quality-of-life data compared with alternative treatment strategies. Early clinical experiences with modest follow-up evaluating a variety of modalities are encouraging but hampered by study design limitations and small sample sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate focal therapy is a promising and emerging treatment strategy for men with a low risk of cancer progression or metastasis. Evaluation in formal prospective clinical trials is essential before this new strategy is accepted in clinical practice. Adequate trials must include appropriate end points, whether absence of cancer on biopsy or reduction in progression of cancer, along with assessments of safety and longitudinal alterations in quality of life.

Recent advances in focal therapy of prostate and kidney cancer

The concept of focal therapy in oncologic surgery refers to maximizing healthy tissue preservation while maintaining excellent cancer control outcomes. Herein, we address the recent advantages in the field of focal therapy for both kidney and prostate cancer, focusing on technological achievements and future perspectives.