1
|
Light A, Mayor N, Cullen E, Kirkham A, Padhani AR, Arya M, Bomers JGR, Dudderidge T, Ehdaie B, Freeman A, Guillaumier S, Hindley R, Lakhani A, Pendse D, Punwani S, Rastinehad AR, Rouvière O, Sanchez-Salas R, Schoots IG, Sokhi HK, Tam H, Tempany CM, Valerio M, Verma S, Villeirs G, van der Meulen J, Ahmed HU, Shah TT. The Transatlantic Recommendations for Prostate Gland Evaluation with Magnetic Resonance Imaging After Focal Therapy (TARGET): A Systematic Review and International Consensus Recommendations. Eur Urol 2024; 85:466-482. [PMID: 38519280 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2024.02.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2023] [Revised: 11/29/2023] [Accepted: 02/04/2024] [Indexed: 03/24/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can detect recurrences after focal therapy for prostate cancer but there is no robust guidance regarding its use. Our objective was to produce consensus recommendations on MRI acquisition, interpretation, and reporting after focal therapy. METHODS A systematic review was performed in July 2022 to develop consensus statements. A two-round consensus exercise was then performed, with a consensus meeting in January 2023, during which 329 statements were scored by 23 panellists from Europe and North America spanning urology, radiology, and pathology with experience across eight focal therapy modalities. Using RAND Corporation/University of California-Los Angeles methodology, the Transatlantic Recommendations for Prostate Gland Evaluation with MRI after Focal Therapy (TARGET) were based on consensus for statements scored with agreement or disagreement. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS In total, 73 studies were included in the review. All 20 studies (100%) reporting suspicious imaging features cited focal contrast enhancement as suspicious for cancer recurrence. Of 31 studies reporting MRI assessment criteria, the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score was the scheme used most often (20 studies; 65%), followed by a 5-point Likert score (six studies; 19%). For the consensus exercise, consensus for statements scored with agreement or disagreement increased from 227 of 295 statements (76.9%) in round one to 270 of 329 statements (82.1%) in round two. Key recommendations include performing routine MRI at 12 mo using a multiparametric protocol compliant with PI-RADS version 2.1 standards. PI-RADS category scores for assessing recurrence within the ablation zone should be avoided. An alternative 5-point scoring system is presented that includes a major dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) sequence and joint minor diffusion-weighted imaging and T2-weighted sequences. For the DCE sequence, focal nodular strong early enhancement was the most suspicious imaging finding. A structured minimum reporting data set and minimum reporting standards for studies detailing MRI data after focal therapy are presented. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS The TARGET consensus recommendations may improve MRI acquisition, interpretation, and reporting after focal therapy for prostate cancer and provide minimum standards for study reporting. PATIENT SUMMARY Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans can detect recurrent of prostate cancer after focal treatments, but there is a lack of guidance on MRI use for this purpose. We report new expert recommendations that may improve practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Light
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Nikhil Mayor
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Emma Cullen
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Alex Kirkham
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Centre for Medical Imaging, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - Anwar R Padhani
- Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK
| | - Manit Arya
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Joyce G R Bomers
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Tim Dudderidge
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Alex Freeman
- Department of Pathology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | - Richard Hindley
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK
| | - Amish Lakhani
- Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK; Department of Imaging, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK; Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Douglas Pendse
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Centre for Medical Imaging, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - Shonit Punwani
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Centre for Medical Imaging, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | | | - Olivier Rouvière
- Department of Vascular and Urinary Imaging, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France; Faculté de Médecine, Université de Lyon, Lyon, France
| | | | - Ivo G Schoots
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Heminder K Sokhi
- Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK; Department of Radiology, The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Henry Tam
- Department of Imaging, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Clare M Tempany
- Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Massimo Valerio
- Department of Urology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Sadhna Verma
- Department of Radiology, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA
| | - Geert Villeirs
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Jan van der Meulen
- Department of Health Services Research & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Hashim U Ahmed
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Taimur T Shah
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Peretsman SJ, Emberton M, Fleshner N, Shoji S, Bahler CD, Miller LE. High-intensity focused ultrasound with visually directed power adjustment for focal treatment of localized prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol 2024; 42:175. [PMID: 38507093 PMCID: PMC10954869 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-04840-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2023] [Accepted: 01/16/2024] [Indexed: 03/22/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To characterize patient outcomes following visually directed high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for focal treatment of localized prostate cancer. METHODS We performed a systematic review of cancer-control outcomes and complication rates among men with localized prostate cancer treated with visually directed focal HIFU. Study outcomes were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis model. RESULTS A total of 8 observational studies with 1,819 patients (median age 67 years; prostate-specific antigen 7.1 mg/ml; prostate volume 36 ml) followed over a median of 24 months were included. The mean prostate-specific antigen nadir following visually directed focal HIFU was 2.2 ng/ml (95% CI 0.9-3.5 ng/ml), achieved after a median of 6 months post-treatment. A clinically significant positive biopsy was identified in 19.8% (95% CI 12.4-28.3%) of cases. Salvage treatment rates were 16.2% (95% CI 9.7-23.8%) for focal- or whole-gland treatment, and 8.6% (95% CI 6.1-11.5%) for whole-gland treatment. Complication rates were 16.7% (95% CI 9.9-24.6%) for de novo erectile dysfunction, 6.2% (95% CI 0.0-19.0%) for urinary retention, 3.0% (95% CI 2.1-3.9%) for urinary tract infection, 1.9% (95% CI 0.1-5.3%) for urinary incontinence, and 0.1% (95% CI 0.0-1.4%) for bowel injury. CONCLUSION Limited evidence from eight observational studies demonstrated that visually directed HIFU for focal treatment of localized prostate cancer was associated with a relatively low risk of complications and acceptable cancer control over medium-term follow-up. Comparative, long-term safety and effectiveness results with visually directed focal HIFU are lacking.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Mark Emberton
- Interventional Oncology, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Neil Fleshner
- Department of Surgical Oncology Urology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | - Sunao Shoji
- Department of Urology, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Japan
| | - Clinton D Bahler
- Department of Urology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | - Larry E Miller
- Miller Scientific, 3101 Browns Mill Road, Ste 6, #311, Johnson City, TN, 37604, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Khandwala YS, Soerensen SJC, Morisetty S, Ghanouni P, Fan RE, Vesal S, Rusu M, Sonn GA. The Association of Tissue Change and Treatment Success During High-intensity Focused Ultrasound Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Focus 2023; 9:584-591. [PMID: 36372735 PMCID: PMC10169538 DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2022.10.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2022] [Revised: 09/17/2022] [Accepted: 10/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Tissue preservation strategies have been increasingly used for the management of localized prostate cancer. Focal ablation using ultrasound-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) has demonstrated promising short and medium-term oncological outcomes. Advancements in HIFU therapy such as the introduction of tissue change monitoring (TCM) aim to further improve treatment efficacy. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association between intraoperative TCM during HIFU focal therapy for localized prostate cancer and oncological outcomes 12 mo afterward. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Seventy consecutive men at a single institution with prostate cancer were prospectively enrolled. Men with prior treatment, metastases, or pelvic radiation were excluded to obtain a final cohort of 55 men. INTERVENTION All men underwent HIFU focal therapy followed by magnetic resonance (MR)-fusion biopsy 12 mo later. Tissue change was quantified intraoperatively by measuring the backscatter of ultrasound waves during ablation. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Gleason grade group (GG) ≥2 cancer on postablation biopsy was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included GG ≥1 cancer, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores ≥3, and evidence of tissue destruction on post-treatment magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). A Student's t - test analysis was performed to evaluate the mean TCM scores and efficacy of ablation measured by histopathology. Multivariate logistic regression was also performed to identify the odds of residual cancer for each unit increase in the TCM score. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS A lower mean TCM score within the region of the tumor (0.70 vs 0.97, p = 0.02) was associated with the presence of persistent GG ≥2 cancer after HIFU treatment. Adjusting for initial prostate-specific antigen, PI-RADS score, Gleason GG, positive cores, and age, each incremental increase of TCM was associated with an 89% reduction in the odds (odds ratio: 0.11, confidence interval: 0.01-0.97) of having residual GG ≥2 cancer on postablation biopsy. Men with higher mean TCM scores (0.99 vs 0.72, p = 0.02) at the time of treatment were less likely to have abnormal MRI (PI-RADS ≥3) at 12 mo postoperatively. Cases with high TCM scores also had greater tissue destruction measured on MRI and fewer visible lesions on postablation MRI. CONCLUSIONS Tissue change measured using TCM values during focal HIFU of the prostate was associated with histopathology and radiological outcomes 12 mo after the procedure. PATIENT SUMMARY In this report, we looked at how well ultrasound changes of the prostate during focal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer predict patient outcomes. We found that greater tissue change measured by the HIFU device was associated with less residual cancer at 1 yr. This tool should be used to ensure optimal ablation of the cancer and may improve focal therapy outcomes in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yash S Khandwala
- Department of Urology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA, USA
| | | | - Shravan Morisetty
- Department of Urology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Pejman Ghanouni
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Richard E Fan
- Department of Urology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA, USA; Department of Radiology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Sulaiman Vesal
- Department of Urology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Mirabela Rusu
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Geoffrey A Sonn
- Department of Urology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA, USA; Department of Radiology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Khokhlova VA, Rosnitskiy PB, Tsysar SA, Buravkov SV, Ponomarchuk EM, Sapozhnikov OA, Karzova MM, Khokhlova TD, Maxwell AD, Wang YN, Kadrev AV, Chernyaev AL, Chernikov VP, Okhobotov DA, Kamalov AA, Schade GR. Initial Assessment of Boiling Histotripsy for Mechanical Ablation of Ex Vivo Human Prostate Tissue. ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE & BIOLOGY 2023; 49:62-71. [PMID: 36207225 PMCID: PMC9712256 DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2022.07.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/02/2022] [Revised: 07/27/2022] [Accepted: 07/31/2022] [Indexed: 05/16/2023]
Abstract
Boiling histotripsy (BH) is a focused ultrasound technology that uses millisecond-long pulses with shock fronts to induce mechanical tissue ablation. The pulsing scheme and mechanisms of BH differ from those of cavitation cloud histotripsy, which was previously developed for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The goal of the work described here was to evaluate the feasibility of using BH to ablate fresh ex vivo human prostate tissue as a proof of principle for developing BH for prostate applications. Fresh human prostate samples (N = 24) were obtained via rapid autopsy (<24 h after death, institutional review board exempt). Samples were analyzed using shear wave elastography to ensure that mechanical properties of autopsy tissue were clinically representative. Samples were exposed to BH using 10- or 1-ms pulses with 1% duty cycle under real-time B-mode and Doppler imaging. Volumetric lesions were created by sonicating 1-4 rectangular planes spaced 1 mm apart, containing a grid of foci spaced 1-2 mm apart. Tissue then was evaluated grossly and histologically, and the lesion content was analyzed using transmission electron microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. Observed shear wave elastography characterization of ex vivo prostate tissue (37.9 ± 22.2 kPa) was within the typical range observed clinically. During BH, hyperechoic regions were visualized at the focus on B-mode, and BH-induced bubbles were also detected using power Doppler. As treatment progressed, hypoechoic regions of tissue appeared, suggesting successful tissue fractionation. BH treatment was twofold faster using shorter pulses (1 ms vs. 10 ms). Histological analysis revealed lesions containing completely homogenized cell debris, consistent with histotripsy-induced mechanical ablation. It was therefore determined that BH is feasible in fresh ex vivo human prostate tissue producing desired mechanical ablation. The study supports further work aimed at translating BH technology as a clinical option for prostate ablation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vera A. Khokhlova
- University of Washington, Applied Physics Laboratory, Center for Industrial and Medical Ultrasound, Seattle, WA
- Lomonosov Moscow State University, Physics Faculty, Moscow, Russia
| | | | - Sergey A. Tsysar
- Lomonosov Moscow State University, Physics Faculty, Moscow, Russia
| | - Sergey V. Buravkov
- Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Fundamental Medicine, Laboratory of Cell Image Analysis, Moscow, Russia
- Research Institute of Human Morphology, Moscow, Russia
| | | | - Oleg A. Sapozhnikov
- University of Washington, Applied Physics Laboratory, Center for Industrial and Medical Ultrasound, Seattle, WA
- Lomonosov Moscow State University, Physics Faculty, Moscow, Russia
| | - Maria M. Karzova
- Lomonosov Moscow State University, Physics Faculty, Moscow, Russia
| | - Tatiana D. Khokhlova
- University of Washington School of Medicine, Department of Medicine Division of Gastroenterology, Seattle, WA
| | - Adam D. Maxwell
- University of Washington School of Medicine, Department of Urology, Seattle, WA
| | - Yak-Nam Wang
- University of Washington, Applied Physics Laboratory, Center for Industrial and Medical Ultrasound, Seattle, WA
| | - Alexey V. Kadrev
- Lomonosov Moscow State University, Medical Research and Educational Center, Department of Urology and Andrology, Moscow, Russia
- Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education, Diagnostic Ultrasound Division, Moscow, Russia
| | - Andrey L. Chernyaev
- Research Institute of Human Morphology, Moscow, Russia
- Pulmonology Scientific Research Institute, Moscow, Russia
| | | | - Dmitriy A. Okhobotov
- Lomonosov Moscow State University, Medical Research and Educational Center, Department of Urology and Andrology, Moscow, Russia
| | - Armais A. Kamalov
- Lomonosov Moscow State University, Medical Research and Educational Center, Department of Urology and Andrology, Moscow, Russia
| | - George R. Schade
- University of Washington School of Medicine, Department of Urology, Seattle, WA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Reddy D, Ahmed HU. Reply to Francesco Montorsi, Armando Stabile, Elio Mazzone, Giorgio Gandaglia, and Alberto Briganti's Letter to the Editor re: Deepika Reddy, Max Peters, Taimur T. Shah, et al. Cancer Control Outcomes Following Focal Therapy Using High-intensity Focused Ultrasound in 1379 Men with Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: A Multi-institute 15-year Experience. Eur Urol 2022;81:407-13. Eur Urol 2022; 82:e74-e75. [PMID: 35690513 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.05.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2022] [Accepted: 05/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Deepika Reddy
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London UK.
| | - Hashim U Ahmed
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London UK; King Edward VII Hospital, London, UK; Cromwell Hospital, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Focal prostate cancer therapy in the era of multiparametric MRI: a review of options and outcomes. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2022:10.1038/s41391-022-00501-0. [PMID: 35246609 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-022-00501-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/12/2021] [Revised: 01/10/2022] [Accepted: 01/19/2022] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The goal of prostate cancer focal therapy is to achieve oncologic control while reducing the rate of adverse events associated with whole-gland treatments. Numerous focal therapy modalities are currently available with early data demonstrating highly variable rates of cancer control and preservation of sexual/urinary function. METHODS All English language clinical trial publications evaluating various focal therapies for localized prostate cancer were reviewed. The literature search was limited to studies from the modern era of MRI-guided treatment, as MRI is hypothesized to improve tumor localization and targeting. Primary outcomes were post-treatment cancer-free rates, in-field/out-of-field recurrence rates, and rates of conversion to radical therapy. Secondary outcomes were related to functional status and adverse events. RESULTS Numerous focal therapies were identified with clinical data including high-intensity focused ultrasound, transurethral ultrasound ablation, focal laser ablation, focal cryotherapy, irreversible electroporation, and photodynamic therapy. Recurrence rates among all technologies were low to moderate (0-51%) and rates of freedom from radical treatment were highly variable (46-98%). Rates of erectile dysfunction and incontinence generally ranged from 0 to 44% and 0 to 12%, respectively, with variability between focal therapy modalities. Caution should be exercised when comparing studies as outcomes are strongly associated with patient selection. No individual focal therapy is currently recommended by society guidelines. Randomized controlled trials are ongoing in search of a standard of care. CONCLUSION For localized MRI-visible prostate cancer, early clinical trial data demonstrate that focal therapy can provide good to moderate cancer control while having preferable side effect profiles compared to whole-gland treatments. While current studies do not make head-to-head comparisons between technologies, early data suggest a potential for these technologies to provide adequate cancer control in a well-selected patient population. The oncologic outcomes of some focal therapies appear promising; however, longer-term follow-up data are needed to assess the durability of early outcomes.
Collapse
|