Can we deliver randomized trials of focal therapy in prostate cancer?

Randomised trials conducted using cohorts: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Cohort studies generate and collect longitudinal data for a variety of research purposes. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) increasingly use cohort studies as data infrastructures to help identify and recruit trial participants and assess outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the extent, range and nature of research using cohorts for RCTs and describe the varied definitions and conceptual boundaries for RCTs using cohorts.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Searches were undertaken in January 2021 in MEDLINE (Ovid) and EBM Reviews-Cochrane Methodology Registry (Final issue, third Quarter 2012).

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Reports published between January 2007 and December 2021 of (a) cohorts used or planned to be used, to conduct RCTs, or (b) RCTs which use cohorts to recruit participants and/or collect trial outcomes, or (c) methodological studies discussing the use of cohorts for RCTs.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted on the condition being studied, age group, setting, country/continent, intervention(s) and comparators planned or received, unit of randomisation, timing of randomisation, approach to informed consent, study design and terminology.

RESULTS

A total of 175 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. We identified 61 protocols, 9 descriptions of stand-alone cohorts intended to be used for future RCTs, 39 RCTs using cohorts and 34 methodological papers.The use and scope of this approach is growing. The thematics of study are far-ranging, including population health, oncology, mental and behavioural disorders, and musculoskeletal conditions.Authors reported that this approach can lead to more efficient recruitment, more representative samples, and lessen disappointment bias and crossovers.

CONCLUSION

This review outlines the development of cohorts to conduct RCTs including the range of use and innovative changes and adaptations. Inconsistencies in the use of terminology and concepts are highlighted. Guidance now needs to be developed to support the design and reporting of RCTs conducted using cohorts.

The Trial within Cohorts (TwiCs) study design in oncology: experience and methodological reflections

A Trial within Cohorts (TwiCs) study design is a trial design that uses the infrastructure of an observational cohort study to initiate a randomized trial. Upon cohort enrollment, the participants provide consent for being randomized in future studies without being informed. Once a new treatment is available, eligible cohort participants are randomly assigned to the treatment or standard of care. Patients randomized to the treatment arm are offered the new treatment, which they can choose to refuse. Patients who refuse will receive standard of care instead. Patients randomized to the standard of care arm receive no information about the trial and continue receiving standard of care as part of the cohort study. Standard cohort measures are used for outcome comparisons. The TwiCs study design aims to overcome some issues encountered in standard Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). An example of an issue in standard RCTs is the slow patient accrual. A TwiCs study aims to improve this by selecting patients using a cohort and only offering the intervention to patients in the intervention arm. In oncology, the TwiCs study design has gained increasing interest during the last decade. Despite its potential advantages over RCTs, the TwiCs study design has several methodological challenges that need careful consideration when planning a TwiCs study. In this article, we focus on these challenges and reflect on them using experiences from TwiCs studies initiated in oncology. Important methodological challenges that are discussed are the timing of randomization, the issue of non-compliance (refusal) after randomization in the intervention arm, and the definition of the intention-to-treat effect in a TwiCs study and how this effect is related to its counterpart in standard RCTs.

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Focal therapy of localized prostate cancer

In the treatment of localized prostate cancer, controlling the cancer and maintaining quality of life are important. Focal therapy of localized prostate cancer aims to treat the lesion/part of the prostate that includes the index lesion, which determines the prognosis. We performed a non-systematic review of novel studies on focal therapy of localized prostate cancer as primary treatment published between 2016 and 2021. For mainly intermediate-risk patients, therapeutic technology, such as cryoablation, brachytherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound, photodynamic therapy, microwave-coagulation, electroporation, and laser ablation, etc., were performed. These procedures are minimally invasive and safe, and provide good functional outcome: a 94-100% pad-free rate against urinary incontinence and 47-86% erectile function, which is sufficient for sexual intercourse. Accurate three-dimensional mapping of the targeted lesion could be an essential navigation technique for therapeutic success. Intermediate- to short-term oncological outcomes were good, resulting in downstaging of the patient's status to no clinically significant cancer; however, transition to conventional whole-gland treatment was necessary in about 10-30% of patients. It is important to select appropriate patients by both multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy, and to follow-up postoperatively with methods such as active surveillance. Clinically significant prostate-specific antigen reduction, image response using preoperative and postoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, and histological analysis should be combined for follow-up.

Focal brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer: 5.7-year clinical outcomes and a pair-matched study with radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVES

To report experience with focal brachytherapy (FB) and compare its clinical outcomes with those of radical prostatectomy (RP) in localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

Fifty-one patients with low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer underwent low-dose-rate FB. Survival rates free from biochemical failure (BF), additional treatment (AT) including re-FB, and whole-gland or systemic salvage therapy (ST) were calculated and oncological risk factors were investigated. Patient-reported outcomes on genitourinary function were also assessed. Using propensity scoring, 51 pair-matched RP patients were selected. Oncological control, urinary continence, and ejaculation status after FB and RP were compared.

RESULTS

During a median 5.7-year follow-up, BF, AT, and ST occurred in 12 (24%), 10 (20%), and 4 FB patients (8%), respectively. 6 of 10 AT patients were managed with re-FB alone. In the RP cohort, 3 patients (6%) underwent ST. 5-year BF-free survival rate after FB was 79%. Compared to 5-year ST-free survival rate of 94% after RP, ST-free and AT-free survival rates after FB were 93% (P = 0.813) and 87% (P = 0.049), respectively. Multivariate analyses of FB-treated patients showed that time to PSA nadir was negatively associated with BF and AT (hazard ratio 0.84 and 0.83, respectively, P <0.001 for each). The difference in oncological outcomes between low- and intermediate-risk categories was not significant. At 2 years after FB and RP, pad-free continence rates were 100% and 81%, respectively (P = 0.001). Ejaculation was preserved in 67% and 0% of patients who had been capable of ejaculation at baseline, respectively (P <0.001).

CONCLUSION

In low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer, FB-treated patients achieved superior genitourinary function compared to pair-matched RP patients. The need for ST was not substantially different between the 2 treatment cohorts. Over half of patients requiring AT could be managed by re-focal treatment rather than whole-gland ST. Early PSA nadir may predict poor oncological control after FB.

An Updated Systematic Review on Focal Therapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: What Has Changed over the Past 5 Years?

CONTEXT

Focal therapy is a promising, minimally invasive strategy to selectively treat localized prostate cancer. A previous systematic review indicated that there is growing evidence for favorable functional outcomes, but that oncological effectiveness was yet to be defined.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of focal therapy in patients with localized prostate cancer in terms of functional and oncological outcomes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched for studies between October 2015 and December 31, 2020. In addition, the research stages were acquired according to the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study (IDEAL) recommendations. Ongoing studies were identified through clinical trial registries.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Seventy-two studies were identified exploring eight different sources of energy to deliver focal therapy in 5827 patients. Twenty-seven studies reported on high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), nine studies on irreversible electroporation, 11 on cryoablation, eight on focal laser ablation and focal brachytherapy, seven on photodynamic therapy (PDT), two on radiofrequency ablation, and one on prostatic artery embolization. The majority of studies were prospective development stage 2a studies (n = 35). PDT and HIFU, both in stage 3, showed promising results. Overall, HIFU studies reported a median of 95% pad-free patients and a median of 85% patients with no clinically significant cancer (CSC) in the treated area. For PDT, no changes in continence were reported and a median of 90% of patients were without CSC. Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past 5 yr, focal therapy has been studied for eight different energy sources, mostly in single-arm stage 2 studies. Although a first randomized controlled trial in focal therapy has been performed, more high-quality evaluations are needed, preferably via multicenter randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up and predefined assessment of oncological and functional outcomes and health-related quality-of-life measures.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Focal treatment (FT) of prostate cancer has potential, considering that it has less impact on continence and potency than radical treatment. Our systematic review indicates that despite the method being studied extensively over the past half decade, the majority of studies remain in an early research stage. The techniques high-intensity focused ultrasound and photodynamic therapy have shown most progression toward advanced research stages and show favorable results. However, more high-quality evidence is required before FT can become available as a standard treatment.

Feasibility of Comparative Health Research Outcome of Novel Surgery in prostate cancer (IP4-CHRONOS): statistical analysis plan for the randomised feasibility phase of the CHRONOS study

Background

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for surgical interventions have often proven difficult with calls for innovative approaches. The Imperial Prostate (IP4) Comparative Health Research Outcomes of Novel Surgery in prostate cancer (IP4-CHRONOS) study aims to deliver level 1 evidence on outcomes following focal therapy which involves treating just the tumour rather than whole-gland surgery or radiotherapy. Our aim is to test the feasibility of two parallel RCTs within an overarching strategy that fits with existing patient and physician equipoise and maximises the chances of success and potential benefit to patients and healthcare services.

Methods and design

IP4-CHRONOS is a randomised, unblinded multi-centre study, including two parallel randomised controlled trials targeting the same patient population: IP4-CHRONOS-A and IP4-CHRONOS-B.

IP4-CHRONOS-A is a 1:1 RCT and the other is a multi-arm, multi-stage (MAMS) RCT starting with three arms and a 1:1:1 randomisation. The two linked RCTs are discussed with patients at the time of consent and the choice of A or B is dependent on physician and patient equipoise. The primary outcome is the feasibility of recruitment, acceptance of randomisation and compliance to allocated arm.

Results

This paper describes the statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the feasibility study within IP4-CHRONOS given its innovative approach. Version 1.0 of the SAP has been reviewed by the Trial Steering Committee (TSC), Chief Investigator (CI), Senior Statistician and Trial Statistician and signed off. The study is ongoing and recruiting. Recruitment is scheduled to finish later in 2021. The SAP documents approved methods and analyses that will be conducted. Since this is written in advance of the analysis, we avoid bias arising from prior knowledge of the study data and findings.

Discussion

Our feasibility analysis will demonstrate if IP4-CHRONOS is feasible in terms of recruitment, randomisation and compliance, and whether to continue both A and B or just one to the main stage.

Trial registration

ISRCTN ISRCTN17796995. Registered on 08 October 2019

PROState Pathway Embedded Comparative Trial: The IP3-PROSPECT study

Introduction

The traditional double blind RCT is the ‘gold standard’ trial design. For a variety of reasons, these designs often fail to accrue enough participants to conclude. This is particularly challenging in localized prostate cancer. The cohort multiple randomised controlled trial (cmRCT) trial design may represent an alternative approach to delivering robust comparative data in prostate cancer.

Patients and methods

IP3-PROSPECT is a cmRCT designed to test multiple prostate cancer interventions from eligible men in one cohort. Key to the design is two points of consent. First, at point of consent one, men referred for prostate cancer investigations are invited to join the cohort. They may then be randomly invited at a later date to consider an intervention at point of consent two. In the pilot phase we will test the acceptability and feasibility of developing the cohort.

Results

Acceptability and feasibility of the study will be measured by a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. The primary outcome measure is the rate of consent to inclusion to the IP3-PROSPECT cohort. Secondary outcome measures include the completeness of data collection at sites and return rates of patient questionnaires. We will also interview patients and healthcare professionals to explore their thoughts on the implementation, practicality and efficiency of IP3-PROSPECT.

Conclusion

The IP3-PROSPECT study will evaluate the cmRCT design in prostate cancer. Initially we will pilot the design, assessing for acceptability and feasibility. The cmRCT is an innovative design that offers potential for building a modern comparative evidence base for prostate cancer.

Conventional radical versus focal treatment for localised prostate cancer: a propensity score weighted comparison of 6-year tumour control

BACKGROUND

For localised prostate cancer, focal therapy offers an organ-sparing alternative to radical treatments (radiotherapy or prostatectomy). Currently, there is no randomised comparative effectiveness data evaluating cancer control of both strategies.

METHODS

Following the eligibility criteria PSA < 20 ng/mL, Gleason score ≤ 7 and T-stage ≤ T2c, we included 830 radical (440 radiotherapy, 390 prostatectomy) and 530 focal therapy (cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound or high-dose-rate brachytherapy) patients treated between 2005 and 2018 from multicentre registries in the Netherlands and the UK. A propensity score weighted (PSW) analysis was performed to compare failure-free survival (FFS), with failure defined as salvage treatment, metastatic disease, systemic treatment (androgen deprivation therapy or chemotherapy), or progression to watchful waiting. The secondary outcome was overall survival (OS). Median (IQR) follow-up in each cohort was 55 (28-83) and 62 (42-83) months, respectively.

RESULTS

At baseline, radical patients had higher PSA (10.3 versus 7.9) and higher-grade disease (31% ISUP 3 versus 11%) compared to focal patients. After PSW, all covariates were balanced (SMD < 0.1). 6-year weighted FFS was higher after radical therapy (80.3%, 95% CI 73.9-87.3) than after focal therapy (72.8%, 95% CI 66.8-79.8) although not statistically significant (p = 0.1). 6-year weighted OS was significantly lower after radical therapy (93.4%, 95% CI 90.1-95.2 versus 97.5%, 95% CI 94-99.9; p = 0.02). When compared in a three-way analysis, focal and LRP patients had a higher risk of treatment failure than EBRT patients (p < 0.001), but EBRT patients had a higher risk of mortality than focal patients (p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of a cohort-based analysis in which residual confounders are likely to exist, we found no clinically relevant difference in cancer control conferred by focal therapy compared to radical therapy at 6 years.

Medium-term oncological and functional outcomes of hemi-gland brachytherapy using iodine-125 seeds for intermediate-risk unilateral prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To examine medium-term outcomes of hemi-gland low-dose-rate brachytherapy as a primary treatment for intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS

We recruited intermediate-risk unilateral prostate cancer patients for a prospective trial of hemi-gland brachytherapy. Twenty-four patients underwent hemi-gland iodine-125 seed implantation with a prescribed dose of 160 Gy. Serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was measured regularly and follow-up biopsy was scheduled after 2-3 years of treatment. When clinically needed afterward, for-cause biopsy was performed to confirm pathology. Treatment failure (TF)-free survival, which was defined as freedom from radical or systemic therapy, metastases, and cancer-specific mortality, was assessed, as was biochemical failure (BF)-free survival. Urinary and sexual functions were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Median follow-up duration was 61 months. Twenty-two patients (92%) exhibited a declining trend or decreased value of PSA for 12 months or longer after the treatment. Follow-up biopsy in the initial triennium and for-cause biopsy in the subsequent triennium were performed in 16 and four patients, respectively, and cancer was found from the treated lobe in one patient (4% of the cohort) and significant cancer was found from untreated lobes in four patients (17%) in total. Secondary treatments were performed in six patients successfully. Five-year freedom from BF, TF, and metastasis was 71%, 90%, and 100%, respectively. The International Prostate Symptom Score significantly deteriorated at 3 months and reversed itself afterward. The International Index of Erectile Function 5 had no significant decrease.

CONCLUSIONS

Hemi-gland low-dose-rate brachytherapy provides favorable medium-term oncological outcomes with genito-urinary functional preservation for men with intermediate-risk unilateral prostate cancer.

Focal therapy compared to radical prostatectomy for non-metastatic prostate cancer: a propensity score-matched study

INTRODUCTION

Focal therapy (FT) ablates areas of prostate cancer rather than treating the whole gland. We compared oncological outcomes of FT to radical prostatectomy (RP).

METHODS

Using prospective multicentre databases of 761 FT and 572 RP cases (November/2005-September/2018), patients with PSA < 20 ng/ml, Gleason </= 4 + 3 and stage </= T2c were 1-1 propensity score-matched for treatment year, age, PSA, Gleason, T-stage, cancer core length and use of neoadjuvant hormones. FT included 1-2 sessions. Primary outcome was failure-free survival (FFS) defined by need for salvage local or systemic therapy or metastases. Differences in FFS were determined using Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank test.

RESULTS

335 radical prostatectomy and 501 focal therapy patients were eligible for matching. For focal therapy, 420 had HIFU and 81 cryotherapy. Cryotherapy was used predominantly for anterior cancer. After matching, 246 RP and 246 FT cases were identified. For radical prostatectomy, mean (SD) age was 63.4 (5.6) years, median (IQR) PSA 7.9 g/ml (6-10) and median (IQR) follow-up 64 (30-89) months. For focal therapy, these were 63.3 (6.9) years, 7.9 ng/ml (5.5-10.6) and 49 [34-67] months, respectively. At 3, 5 and 8 years, FFS (95%CI) was 86% (81-91%), 82% (77-88%) and 79% (73-86%) for radical prostatectomy compared to 91% (87-95%), 86% (81-92%) and 83% (76-90%) following focal therapy (p = 0.12).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with non-metastatic low- intermediate prostate cancer, oncological outcomes over 8 years were similar between focal therapy and radical prostatectomy.

Cryoablation, high-intensity focused ultrasound, irreversible electroporation, and vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy for prostate cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Cryoablation (CA), high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), irreversible electroporation (IRE), and vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy (VTP) have been evaluated as novel strategies for selected patients with prostate cancer (PCa). We aim to determine the current status of literature regarding the clinical outcomes among these minimally invasive therapies. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for all English literature published from January 2001 to December 2019 was conducted to identify studies evaluating outcomes of CA, HIFU, IRE or VTP on PCa. Proportionality with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was performed using STATA version 14.0. 56 studies consisting of 7383 participants were found to report data of interest and fulfilled the inclusion criteria in the final meta-analysis. The pooled proportions of positive biopsy after procedure were 20.0%, 24.3%, 24.2%, and 36.2% in CA, HIFU, IRE and VTP, respectively. The pooled proportions of BRFS were 75.7% for CA and 74.4% for HIFU. The pooled proportions of CSS were 96.1%, 98.2%, and 97.9% for CA, HIFU, and IRE, respectively. The pooled proportions of OS were 92.8% for CA and 85.2% for HIFU. The pooled proportions of FFS were 64.7%, 90.4%, and 76.7% for CA, IRE and VTP, respectively. The pooled proportions of MFS were 92.8% for HIFU and 99.1% for IRE. This meta-analysis shows that CA, HIFU, IRE, and VTP are promising therapies for PCa patients with similar clinical outcomes. However, further larger, well-designed randomized controlled trials are required to confirm this assertion.

Learning health care systems: Highly needed but challenging

BACKGROUND

Learning health care systems (LHSs) have the potential to transform health care. However, this transformation process faces significant challenges.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Based on proposals and early examples of LHSs in the literature and conceptual analysis of the LHS mission, we provide four models with distinct organizational and ethical implications that may facilitate the transformation.

RESULTS

An LHS could be developed in the following ways: by taking away practical impediments that prevent patients and professionals from engaging in scientific research (model 1: optimization LHS); by routinely analyzing observational data from electronic health records and other sources (model 2: comprehensive data LHS); by making clinical decisions based on the outcomes of the aforementioned data analyses and directly evaluating the outcomes in order to continuously improve decision-making (model 3: real-time LHS); or by embedding clinical trials into routine care delivery (model 4: full LHS).

CONCLUSIONS

Each model has different ethical implications for consent and oversight. Also, the four-model approach shows that reorganizing a health care center into an LHS is not an all-or-nothing decision. Rather, it is a choice from a menu of possibilities. Instead of discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the LHS menu in its entirety, the medical community should focus on the designs and ethical aspects of each of the separate options.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparative Healthcare Research Outcomes of Novel Surgery in prostate cancer (IP4-CHRONOS): A prospective, multi-centre therapeutic phase II parallel Randomised Control Trial

INTRODUCTION

Focal therapy (FT) targets individual areas of cancer within the prostate, providing oncological control with minimal side-effects. Early evidence demonstrates encouraging short-medium-term outcomes. With no randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing FT to radical therapies, Comparative Healthcare Research Outcomes of Novel Surgery in prostate cancer (CHRONOS) will compare the cancer control of these two strategies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

CHRONOS is a parallel phase II RCT for patients with clinically significant non-metastatic prostate cancer, dependent upon clinician/patient decision, patients will enrol into either CHRONOS-A or CHRONOS-B. CHRONOS-A will randomize patients to either radical treatment or FT. CHRONOS-B is a multi-arm, multistage RCT comparing focal therapy alone to FT with neoadjuvant agents that might improve the current focal therapy outcomes. An internal pilot will determine the feasibility of, and compliance to, randomization. The proposed definitive study plans to recruit and randomize 1190 patients into CHRONOS-A and 1260 patients into CHRONOS-B.

RESULTS

Primary outcome in CHRONOS-A is progression-free survival (transition to salvage local or systemic therapy, development of metastases or prostate-cancer-related mortality) and in CHRONOS-B is failure-free survival (includes the above definition and recurrence of clinically significant prostate cancer after initial FT). Secondary outcomes include adverse events, health economics and functional outcomes measured using validated questionnaires. CHRONOS is powered to assess non-inferiority of FT compared to radical therapy in CHRONOS-A, and superiority of neoadjuvant agents with FT in CHRONOS-B.

CONCLUSION

CHRONOS will assess the oncological outcomes after FT compared to radical therapy and whether neoadjuvant treatments improve cancer control following one FT session.

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.

Treatment of Perianal Fistulas in Crohn's Disease, Seton Versus Anti-TNF Versus Surgical Closure Following Anti-TNF [PISA]: A Randomised Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Most patients with perianal Crohn's fistula receive medical treatment with anti-tumour necrosis factor [TNF], but the results of anti-TNF treatment have not been directly compared with chronic seton drainage or surgical closure. The aim of this study was to assess if chronic seton drainage for patients with perianal Crohn's disease fistulas would result in less re-interventions, compared with anti-TNF and compared with surgical closure.

METHODS

This randomised trial was performed in 19 European centres. Patients with high perianal Crohn's fistulas with a single internal opening were randomly assigned to: i] chronic seton drainage for 1 year; ii] anti-TNF therapy for 1 year; and iii] surgical closure after 2 months under a short course anti-TNF. The primary outcome was the cumulative number of patients with fistula-related re-intervention[s] at 1.5 years. Patients declining randomisation due to a specific treatment preference were included in a parallel prospective PISA registry cohort.

RESULTS

Between September 14, 2013 and November 20, 2017, 44 of the 126 planned patients were randomised. The study was stopped by the data safety monitoring board because of futility. Seton treatment was associated with the highest re-intervention rate [10/15, versus 6/15 anti-TNF and 3/14 surgical closure patients, p = 0.02]. No substantial differences in perianal disease activity and quality of life between the three treatment groups were observed. Interestingly, in the PISA prospective registry, inferiority of chronic seton treatment was not observed for any outcome measure.

CONCLUSIONS

The results imply that chronic seton treatment should not be recommended as the sole treatment for perianal Crohn's fistulas.

Development of Treatments for Localized Prostate Cancer in Patients Eligible for Active Surveillance: U.S. Food and Drug Administration Oncology Center of Excellence Public Workshop

PURPOSE

The following is a summary of discussion at a United States FDA (Food and Drug Administration) public workshop reviewing potential trial designs and end points to develop therapies to treat localized prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The workshop focused on the challenge that drug and device development to treat localized prostate cancer has been limited by the large trial sizes and lengthy timelines required to demonstrate an improvement in overall or metastasis-free survival and by the lack of agreed on alternative end points. Additionally, evolving treatment paradigms in the management of localized prostate cancer include the widespread use of active surveillance of patients with low and some intermediate risk prostate cancer, and the availability of advances in imaging and genomics.

RESULTS

The workshop addressed issues related to trial design in this setting. Attendees discussed several potential novel end points such as a delay of morbidity due to radiation or prostatectomy and pathological end points such as Gleason Grade Group upgrade.

CONCLUSIONS

The workshop provided an open forum for multiple stakeholder engagement to advance the development of effective treatment options for men with localized prostate cancer.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Overcoming difficulties with equipoise to enable recruitment to a randomised controlled trial of partial ablation vs radical prostatectomy for unilateral localised prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To describe how clinicians conceptualised equipoise in the PART (Partial prostate Ablation vs Radical prosTatectomy in intermediate-risk unilateral clinically localised prostate cancer) feasibility study and how this affected recruitment.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

PART included a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to optimise recruitment. Phase I aimed to understand recruitment, and included: scrutinising recruitment data, interviewing the trial management group and recruiters (n = 13), and audio-recording recruitment consultations (n = 64). Data were analysed using qualitative content and thematic analysis methods. In Phase II, strategies to improve recruitment were developed and delivered.

RESULTS

Initially many recruiters found it difficult to maintain a position of equipoise and held preconceptions about which treatment was best for particular patients. They did not feel comfortable about approaching all eligible patients, and when the study was discussed, biases were conveyed through the use of terminology, poorly balanced information, and direct treatment recommendations. Individual and group feedback led to presentations to patients becoming clearer and enabled recruiters to reconsider their sense of equipoise. Although the precise impact of the QRI alone cannot be determined, recruitment increased (from a mean [range] of 1.4 [0-4] to 4.5 [0-12] patients/month) and the feasibility study reached its recruitment target.

CONCLUSION

Although clinicians find it challenging to recruit patients to a trial comparing different contemporary treatments for prostate cancer, training and support can enable recruiters to become more comfortable with conveying equipoise and providing clearer information to patients.

Focal therapy in localised prostate cancer: Real-world urological perspective explored in a cross-sectional European survey

INTRODUCTION

The urological community's opinion over focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa) has never been assessed. Our aim was to investigate the current opinion on FT in the European urological community.

METHODS

A 25-item questionnaire was devised according to the Cherries checklist and distributed through SurveyMonkey using a web link from November 2016 to October 2017. After a pilot validation (n = 40 urologists), the survey was sent through EAU and 9 other national European urological societies mailing list. Twitter was also used.

RESULTS

We received 484 replies from 51 countries. Almost half (44.8%, n = 217) stated FT would represent a step forward, and 52.0% (n = 252) would suggest FT to a patient. Almost three-quarters (70.8%, n = 343) agreed FT will become a standard option after improvements in patient selection (n = 66) or when its effectiveness will be proven (n = 78), or both (n = 199). Most frequently used definition of FT was treatment of all significant (life-threatening) cancer foci whilst leaving untreated the rest of the gland (39.3%, n = 190). FT use was considered as an alternative to whole-gland treatments by 29.7% (n = 144), and to AS by 25.0% (n = 121). On multivariate analysis, FT availability and publications were associated with a positive opinion on FT. Conversely, attending International congresses, treating high PCa volumes and high percentages of high-risk PCa was associated with a negative opinion.

CONCLUSIONS

FT is considered as an attractive option for PCa treatment by the European urological community sampled by our survey. FT availability positively influences these thoughts. The present survey suggests whilst some early adopters already embraced FT, the relative majority of the urological community is prone to embrace FT in the near future, once current areas of debate are solved.

Focal Treatment for Unilateral Prostate Cancer Using High-Intensity Focal Ultrasound: A Comprehensive Study of Pooled Data

BACKGROUND

Focal therapy for prostate cancer (PCa) remains experimental. Aim of the current study is to review available evidence and perform a pooled analysis exploring oncologic and functional results of high intensity focus ultrasound (HIFU) focal therapy for the treatment of unilateral PCa.

METHODS

The National Library of Medicine Database was searched for relevant articles. A wide search was performed, including the combination of following words: "HIFU," "prostate," "cancer," and "focal." Overall, 167 articles were reviewed. Of these, seven articles were identified and eligible for the pooled analysis. Data on HIFU hemiablation or focal prostate ablation, oncologic and functional results were pooled from these seven studies that included 366 men with unilateral PCa.

RESULTS

In the 366 analyzed cases, mean age was 67 years (95% confidence interval 66-69), and mean preoperative prostate-specific antigen was 6.4 ng/cc (5.5-7.4). Three studies included PCa up to Gleason 7 (3 + 4), three studies did include also Gleason 7 (4 + 3), whereas one study had no limitation in terms of Gleason score. Regarding early complications, low-grade Clavien-Dindo I-II were reported in 26% (16-37), whereas high-grade Clavien-Dindo ≥III were found in 3.8% (0-8.6). Analyzing oncologic outcomes mean follow-up was 26 months (23-31): at one year after HIFU, negative biopsy rate for clinically significant PCa was 87% (79-96), whereas salvage treatment-free survival rate was 92% (85-98). Regarding functional outcomes, reported potency rates were 74% (64-84), and continence 96% (91-100), although definitions of potency and continence were not homogenous across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This pooled analysis of the results of focal HIFU treatment of PCa shows promising oncologic and functional outcomes. Well-selected patients may be candidates for such a conservative partial treatment of the gland. Well-designed trials are awaited to compare HIFU focal treatment with current standard of care.

A Multicentre Study of 5-year Outcomes Following Focal Therapy in Treating Clinically Significant Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer

Background

Clinically significant nonmetastatic prostate cancer (PCa) is currently treated using whole-gland therapy. This approach is effective but can have urinary, sexual, and rectal side effects.

Objective

To report on 5-yr PCa control following focal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) therapy to treat individual areas of cancer within the prostate.

Design, setting, and participants

This was a prospective study of 625 consecutive patients with nonmetastatic clinically significant PCa undergoing focal HIFU therapy (Sonablate) in secondary care centres between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2015. A minimum of 6-mo follow-up was available for599 patients. Intermediate- or high-risk PCa was found in 505 patients (84%).

Intervention

Disease was localised using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) combined with targeted and systematic biopsies, or transperineal mapping biopsies. Areas of significant disease were treated. Follow-up included prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurement, mpMRI, and biopsies.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

The primary endpoint, failure-free survival (FFS), was defined as freedom from radical or systemic therapy, metastases, and cancer-specific mortality.

Results and limitations

The median follow-up was 56 mo (interquartile range [IQR] 35–70). The median age was 65 yr (IQR 61–71) and median preoperative PSA was 7.2 ng/ml (IQR 5.2–10.0). FFS was 99% (95% confidence interval [CI] 98–100%) at 1 yr, 92% (95% CI 90–95%) at 3 yr, and 88% (95% 85–91%) at 5 yr. For the whole patient cohort, metastasis-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival at 5 yr was 98% (95% CI 97–99%), 100%, and 99% (95% CI 97–100%), respectively. Among patients who returned validated questionnaires, 241/247 (98%) achieved complete pad-free urinary continence and none required more than 1 pad/d. Limitations include the lack of long-term follow-up.

Conclusions

Focal therapy for select patients with clinically significant nonmetastatic prostate cancer is effective in the medium term and has a low probability of side effects.

Patient summary

In this multicentre study of 625 patients undergoing focal therapy using high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), failure-free survival, metastasis-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival were 88%, 98%, 100%, and 99%, respectively. Urinary incontinence (any pad use) was 2%. Focal HIFU therapy for patients with clinically significant prostate cancer that has not spread has a low probability of side effects and is effective at 5 yr.

Which technology to select for primary focal treatment of prostate cancer?-European Section of Urotechnology (ESUT) position statement

BACKGROUND

With growing interest in focal therapy (FT) of prostate cancer (PCa) there is an increasing armamentarium of treatment modalities including high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), cryotherapy, focal laser ablation (FLA), irreversible electroporation (IRE), vascular targeted photodynamic therapy (VTP), focal brachytherapy (FBT) and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). Currently there are no clear recommendations as to which of these technologies are appropriate for individual patient characteristics. Our intention was to review the literature for special aspects of the different technologies that might be of advantage depending on individual patient and tumour characteristics.

METHODS

The current literature on FT was screened for the following factors: morbidity, repeatability, tumour risk category, tumour location, tumour size and prostate volume and anatomical issues. The ESUT expert panel arrived at consensus regarding a position statement on a structured pathway for available FT technologies based on a combination of the literature and expert opinion.

RESULTS

Side effects were low across different studies and FT modalities with urinary continence rates of 90-100% and erectile dysfunction between 5 and 52%. Short to medium cancer control based on post-treatment biopsies were variable between ablative modalities. Expert consensus suggested that posterior lesions are better amenable to FT using HIFU. Cryotherapy provides best possible outcomes for anterior tumours. Apical lesions, when treated with FBT, may yield the least urethral morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

Further prospective trials are required to assess medium to long term disease control of different ablative modalities for FT. Amongst different available FT modalities our ESUT expert consensus suggests that some may be better for diffe`rent tumour locations. Tumour risk, tumour size, tumour location, and prostate volume are all important factors to consider and might aid in designing future FT trials.

Pair-matched patient-reported quality of life and early oncological control following focal irreversible electroporation versus robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Purpose

The design, conduct and completion of randomized trials for curative prostate cancer (PCa) treatments are challenging. To evaluate the effect of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus focal irreversible electroporation (IRE) on patient-reported quality of life (QoL) and early oncological control using propensity-scored matching.

Methods

Patients with T1c–cT2b significant PCa (high-volume ISUP 1 or any 2/3) who received unifocal IRE were pair-matched to patients who received nerve-sparing RARP. Patient-reported outcomes were prospectively assessed using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), AUA symptom score and Short Form of Health Survey (SF-12) physical and mental components. Oncological failure was defined as biochemical recurrence (RARP) or positive follow-up biopsies (IRE). Generalized mixed-effect models were used to compare IRE and RARP.

Results

50 IRE patients were matched to 50 RARP patients by propensity score. IRE was significantly superior to RARP in preserving pad-free continence (UC) and erections sufficient for intercourse (ESI). The absolute differences were 44, 21, 13, 14% for UC and 32, 46, 27, 22% for ESI at 1.5, 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. The EPIC summary scores showed no statistically significant differences. Urinary symptoms were reduced for IRE and RARP patients at 12 months, although IRE patient initially had more complaints. IRE patients experienced more early oncological failure than RARP patients.

Conclusions

These data demonstrated the superior preservation of UC and ESI with IRE compared to RARP up to 12 months after treatment. Long-term oncological data are warranted to provide ultimate proof for or against focal therapy.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00345-018-2281-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Can Focal Therapy Replace Radical Therapy for Prostate Cancer? Against Focal Therapy

Until prospective data demonstrate the oncologic efficacy of focal therapy for clinically significant, localized prostate cancer, it should be considered as experimental and only performed within the confines of a clinical trial.

Targeted Ablative Therapies for Prostate Cancer

Men diagnosed with low- to intermediate-risk, clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) often face a daunting and difficult decision with respect to treatment: active surveillance (AS) or radical therapy. This decision is further confounded by the fact that many of these men diagnosed, by an elevated PSA, will have indolent disease and never require intervention. Radical treatments, including radical prostatectomy and whole-gland radiation, offer greater certainty for cancer control, but at the risk of significant urinary and/or sexual morbidity. Conversely, AS preserves genitourinary function and quality of life in exchange for burdensome surveillance and the psychological impact of living with cancer.

Focal Ablation of Early-Stage Prostate Cancer: Candidate Selection, Treatment Guidance, and Assessment of Outcome

Prostate cancer lesions smaller than 0.5 m³, or Gleason pattern 3, are likely clinically insignificant. Clinically significant disease is often limited to a single index lesion. Focal ablation targets this index lesion, maintains oncological control, and minimizes complications by preserving healthy prostate tissue. Template mapping biopsy or multiparametric MRI-targeted biopsies are used to identify appropriate index lesions. Multiple energy modalities have been tested, including high-intensity frequency ultrasound, cryoablation, laser ablation, photodynamic therapy, focal brachytherapy, radiofrequency ablation, irreversible electroporation. Outcome is assessed by biopsy of the target area, triggered by prostate-specific antigen measurements or MRI imaging, or performed per protocol at 12 months.

Corrigendum: Can we deliver randomized trials of focal therapy in prostate cancer?

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.44.

Focal therapy for prostate cancer: the technical challenges

Focal therapy for prostate cancer has been proposed as an alternative treatment to whole gland therapy, offering the opportunity for tumor dose escalation and/or reduced toxicity. Brachytherapy, either low-dose-rate or high-dose-rate, provides an ideal approach, offering both precision in dose delivery and opportunity for a highly conformal, non-uniform dose distribution. Whilst multiple consensus documents have published clinical guidelines for patient selection, there are insufficient data to provide clear guidelines on target volume delineation, treatment planning margins, treatment planning approaches, and many other technical issues that should be considered before implementing a focal brachytherapy program. Without consensus guidelines, there is the potential for a diversity of practices to develop, leading to challenges in interpreting outcome data from multiple centers. This article provides an overview of the technical considerations for the implementation of a clinical service, and discusses related topics that should be considered in the design of clinical trials to ensure precise and accurate methods are applied for focal brachytherapy treatments.

Contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasound for prediction of prostate cancer aggressiveness: The role of normal peripheral zone time-intensity curves

To assess the role of time-intensity curves (TICs) of the normal peripheral zone (PZ) in the identification of biopsy-proven prostate nodules using contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasound (CETRUS). This study included 132 patients with 134 prostate PZ nodules. Arrival time (AT), peak intensity (PI), mean transit time (MTT), area under the curve (AUC), time from peak to one half (TPH), wash in slope (WIS) and time to peak (TTP) were analyzed using multivariate linear logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to assess whether combining nodule TICs with normal PZ TICs improved the prediction of prostate cancer (PCa) aggressiveness. The PI, AUC (p < 0.001 for both), MTT and TPH (p = 0.011 and 0.040 respectively) values of the malignant nodules were significantly higher than those of the benign nodules. Incorporating the PI and AUC values (both, p < 0.001) of the normal PZ TIC, but not the MTT and TPH values (p = 0.076 and 0.159 respectively), significantly improved the AUC for prediction of malignancy (PI: 0.784–0.923; AUC: 0.758–0.891) and assessment of cancer aggressiveness (p < 0.001). Thus, all these findings indicate that incorporating normal PZ TICs with nodule TICs in CETRUS readings can improve the diagnostic accuracy for PCa and cancer aggressiveness assessment.

Focal therapy in prostate cancer: A review of seven common controversies

Radical treatments such as prostatectomy and radiotherapy have demonstrated success in terms of biochemical and disease-specific survival for localised prostate cancer. However, whilst the end goal of any cancer treatment is to control or cure disease it must also do so by minimising any side effects that may be experienced by the patient. Focal therapy as a concept aims to redress this established therapeutic ratio by treating areas of the prostate affected by significant disease as opposed to treating the entire gland. However, there are a number of common criticisms of focal therapy - we deem the seven sins - that require further interrogation.

Focal therapy as primary treatment for localized prostate cancer: definition, needs and future

Focal therapy (FT) may offer a promising treatment option in the field of low to intermediate risk localized prostate cancer. The aim of this concept is to combine minimal morbidity with cancer control as well as maintain the possibility of retreatment. Recent advances in MRI and targeted biopsy has improved the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer and increased the interest in FT. However, before implementation of FT in routine clinical practice, several challenges are still to overcome including patient selection, treatment planning, post-therapy monitoring and definition of oncologic outcome surrogates. In this article, relevant questions regarding the key steps of FT are critically discussed and the main available energy modalities are analyzed taking into account their advantages and unmet needs.

Clinical management and research priorities for high-risk prostate cancer in the UK: Meeting report of a multidisciplinary panel in conjunction with the NCRI Prostate Cancer Clinical Studies Localised Subgroup

The management of high-risk prostate cancer has become increasingly sophisticated, with refinements in radical therapy and the inclusion of adjuvant local and systemic therapies. Despite this, high-risk prostate cancer continues to have significant treatment failure rates, with progression to metastasis, castrate resistance and ultimately disease-specific death. In an effort to discuss the challenges in this field, the UK National Clinical Research Institute’s Prostate Cancer Clinical Studies localised subgroup convened a multidisciplinary national meeting in the autumn of 2014. The remit of the meeting was to debate and reach a consensus on the key clinical and research challenges in high-risk prostate cancer and to identify themes that the UK would be best placed to pursue to help improve outcomes. This report presents the outcome of those discussions and the key recommendations for future research in this highly heterogeneous disease entity.

Final Results of a Phase I/II Multicenter Trial of WST11 Vascular Targeted Photodynamic Therapy for Hemi-Ablation of the Prostate in Men with Unilateral Low Risk Prostate Cancer Performed in the United States

PURPOSE

Vascular targeted photodynamic therapy with WST11 (TOOKAD® Soluble) is a form of tissue ablation that may be used therapeutically for localized prostate cancer. To study dosing parameters and associated treatment effects we performed a prospective, multicenter, phase I/II trial of WST11 vascular targeted photodynamic therapy of prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 30 men with unilateral, low volume, Gleason 3 + 3 prostate cancer were enrolled at 5 centers after local institutional review board approval. Light energy, fiber number and WST11 dose were escalated to identify optimal dosing parameters for vascular targeted photodynamic therapy hemi-ablation. Men were treated with photodynamic therapy and evaluated by posttreatment magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy. Prostate specific antigen, light dose index (defined as fiber length/desired treatment volume), toxicity and quality of life parameters were recorded.

RESULTS

After dose escalation 21 men received optimized dosing of 4 mg/kg WST11 at 200 J energy. On posttreatment biopsy residual prostate cancer was found in the treated lobe in 10 men, the untreated lobe in 4 and both lobes in 1. At a light dose index of 1 or greater with optimal dosing in 15 men 73.3% had a negative biopsy in the treated lobe. Six men undergoing retreatment with the optimal dose and a light dose index of 1 or greater had a negative posttreatment biopsy. Minimal effects were observed on urinary and sexual function, and overall quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Hemi-ablation of the prostate with WST11 vascular targeted photodynamic therapy was well tolerated and resulted in a negative biopsy in the treated lobe in the majority of men. Dosing parameters and the light dose index appear related to tissue response as determined by magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy. These parameters may serve as the basis for further prospective studies.

The challenging landscape of medical device approval in localized prostate cancer

Findings of research using modern multiparametric MRI have provided clinicians with reliable targets for guiding prostate biopsy sampling and directing targeted therapy, often termed focal therapy, to specific areas of the prostate. This emerging shift in treatment strategy from a whole-gland approach to a lesion-specific or region-specific approach requires novel medical devices. The rules regulating the approval and clinical use of such new devices often differ between the USA and Europe, and these differences can affect the treatments that patients receive. Current regulatory pathways for approval of various image-guided biopsy and focal therapy devices intended to be used in patients with prostate cancer are discussed in detail. Finally, we offer some perspective on the current status of research in the field, and propose a potential roadmap towards the establishment of timely, safe and standardized criteria for optimal evaluation of novel image-guided devices for treatment of patients with localized prostate cancer.

Partial Gland Ablation for Prostate Cancer: Report of a Food and Drug Administration, American Urological Association, and Society of Urologic Oncology Public Workshop

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the discussion that took place at a public workshop, co-sponsored by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the American Urological Association, and Society of Urologic Oncology reviewing the current state of the art for partial gland ablation (PGA) for the management of patients with prostate cancer. The purpose of this workshop was to discuss potential indications, current available evidence, and designs for future trials to provide the evidence needed by patients and providers to decide how and when to use PGA.

METHODS

A workshop evaluating PGA for prostate cancer was held in New Orleans, Louisiana, in May 2015. Invited experts representing all stakeholders and attendees discussed the regulatory development of medical products, technology available, potential indications, and designs of trials to evaluate this modality of therapy.

RESULTS

The panel presented the current information on the technologies available to perform PGA, the potential indications, and results of prior consensus conferences. Use of magnetic resonance imaging for patient selection, guide therapy, and follow-up was discussed. Designs of trials to assess PGA outcomes were discussed.

CONCLUSION

The general consensus was that currently available technologies are capable of selective ablation with reasonable accuracy, but that criteria for patient selection remain debatable, and long-term cancer control remains to be established in properly designed and well-performed prospective clinical trials. Concerns include the potential for excessive, unnecessary use in patients with low-risk cancer and, conversely, that current diagnostic techniques may underestimate the extent and aggressiveness of some cancers, leading to inadequate treatment.

The Effects of Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer on Sexual Function: A Combined Analysis of Three Prospective Trials

BACKGROUND

Tissue preservation by means of focal therapy offers some men with clinically significant prostate cancer an alternative to standard care that appears to confer favourable genito-urinary outcomes. The precise estimates of these outcomes have so far been based on small series.

OBJECTIVE

This analysis pools the sexual domain related patient reported outcomes from three prospective, registered studies that represent a range of inclusion criteria.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

One-hundred and eighteen men with localised prostate cancer (prostate specific antigen ≤ 15ng/ml, Gleason ≤ 4+3, stage ≤ T3aN0M0) treated in a tissue-preserving manner using high intensity focused ultrasound from three registered studies were included. Data on International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) scores and use of phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitors were collected at baseline, and 1 mo, 3 mo, 6 mo, 9 mo, and 12 mo postoperatively. The IIEF-15 total and individual domain scores were used to assess overall sexual function. Urinary function was assessed with the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), IPSS quality-of-life, and UCLA-Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite continence questionnaires. General health status was derived by means of the Charlson score. Multiple linear regression was used to assess whether age, grade, stage, qualitative scores (IIEF, IPSS, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite, Charlson), or focal therapy type duration were associated with IIEF-5 and IIEF-15 scores at 12 mo.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Median age was 63 yr (interquartile range [IQR] 52-70 yr). Median IIEF-erectile score at baseline was 23 (IQR 11-28). This declined significantly to 9 (IQR 3-22, p<0.01) at 1 mo, but improved to 20 (IQR 9-29, p=0.30) at 1 yr posttreatment. Changes in total IIEF and other IIEF domains were only significantly different from preoperative values at 1 mo and 3 mo postoperatively. In the same period, the proportion of men using phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitors was 10% preoperatively, reaching 43% and 42% at 6 mo and 9 months before declining to 37% at 1 yr. The only baseline determinants of postoperative erectile function were total IIEF and IIEF-erectile function scores (p=0.002). The primary limitation of our study is the relatively short follow-up of 1 yr.

CONCLUSION

Men who received a range of tissue preserving therapies from the three pertinent studies experienced small decreases in total IIEF, erectile, and individual sexual domain scores that are not significantly different to those recorded at baseline. The only determinant of erectile dysfunction after tissue preserving therapy was preoperative erectile dysfunction status. Tissue preservation confers a high probability of maintaining erectile function that appears independent of all perioperative factors with the exception of baseline status.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this report, the largest prospectively collected and published set of patients with erectile dysfunction outcomes post-focal therapy for prostate cancer, we have found a return to baseline International Index of Erectile Function-erectile and total International Index of Erectile Function scores by 6 mo post-focal therapy which was maintained at 1 yr, with the majority of patients not on any form of medical treatment for their erectile dysfunction at that point. Focal therapy may represent a suitable alternative for men of any age or comorbidity wishing to maintain erectile function.