Cost-utility analysis of focal high-intensity focussed ultrasound vs active surveillance for low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer using a Markov multi-state model

Risk calculators for the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) (early) detection poses significant challenges, including unnecessary testing and the risk of potential overdiagnosis. The European Association of Urology therefore suggests an individual risk-adapted approach, incorporating risk calculators (RCs) into the PCa detection pathway. In the context of 'The PRostate Cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union' (PRAISE-U) project ( https://uroweb.org/praise-u ), we aim to provide an overview of the currently available clinical RCs applicable in an early PCa detection algorithm.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review to identify RCs predicting detection of clinically significant PCa at biopsy. A search was performed in the databases Medline ALL, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar for publications between January 2010 and July 2023. We retrieved relevant literature by using the terms "prostate cancer", "screening/diagnosis" and "predictive model". Inclusion criteria included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical trials. Exclusion criteria applied to studies involving pre-targeted high-risk populations, diagnosed PCa patients, or a sample sizes under 50 men.

RESULTS

We identified 6474 articles, of which 140 were included after screening abstracts and full texts. In total, we identified 96 unique RCs. Among these, 45 underwent external validation, with 28 validated in multiple cohorts. Of the externally validated RCs, 17 are based on clinical factors, 19 incorporate clinical factors along with MRI details, 4 were based on blood biomarkers alone or in combination with clinical factors, and 5 included urinary biomarkers. The median AUC of externally validated RCs ranged from 0.63 to 0.93.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review offers an extensive analysis of currently available RCs, their variable utilization, and performance within validation cohorts. RCs have consistently demonstrated their capacity to mitigate the limitations associated with early detection and have been integrated into modern practice and screening trials. Nevertheless, the lack of external validation data raises concerns about numerous RCs, and it is crucial to factor in this omission when evaluating whether a specific RC is applicable to one's target population.

The Applications of High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) Ablative Therapy in the Treatment of Primary Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

This study evaluates the role of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) ablative therapy in treating primary breast cancer.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus databases were searched according to the PRISMA guidelines to identify studies from 2002 to November 2022. Eligible studies were selected based on criteria such as experimental study type, the use of HIFU therapy as a treatment for localised breast cancer with objective clinical evaluation, i.e., clinical, radiological, and pathological outcomes. Nine studies were included in this study.

RESULTS

Two randomised controlled trials and seven non-randomised clinical trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The percentage of patients who achieved complete (100%) coagulation necrosis varied from 17% to 100% across all studies. Eight of the nine studies followed the treat-and-resect protocol in which HIFU-ablated tumours were surgically resected for pathological evaluation. Most breast cancers were single, solitary, and palpable breast tumours. Haematoxylin and eosin stains used for histopathological evaluation showed evidence of coagulation necrosis. Radiological evaluation by MRI showed an absence of contrast enhancement in the HIFU-treated tumour and 1.5 to 2 cm of normal breast tissue, with a thin peripheral rim of enhancement indicative of coagulation necrosis. All studies did not report severe complications, i.e., haemorrhage and infection. Common complications related to HIFU ablation were local mammary oedema, pain, tenderness, and mild to moderate burns. Only one third-degree burn was reported. Generally, the cosmetic outcome was good. The five-year disease-free survival rate was 95%, as reported in two RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

HIFU ablation can induce tumour coagulation necrosis in localised breast cancer, with a favourable safety profile and cosmetic outcome. However, there is variable evidence of complete coagulation necrosis in the HIFU-treated tumour. Histopathological evidence of coagulation necrosis has been inconsistent, and there is no reliable radiological modality to assess coagulation necrosis confidently. Further exploration is needed to establish the accurate ablation margin with a reliable radiological modality for treatment and follow-up. HIFU therapy is currently limited to single, palpable breast tumours. More extensive and randomised clinical trials are needed to evaluate HIFU therapy for breast cancer, especially where the tumour is left in situ.