[Oncological and functional results of focal treatment of localized prostate cancer with HIFU]

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, improved diagnosis of prostate cancer has allowed the development of focal therapy, in order to reduce the morbidity of treatments. Our study assesses the medium-term oncological and functional results of FocalOne® HIFU treatment in localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, multicentre study including patients with low- or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer treated with Focal one HIFU between November 2014 and December 2019. The primary endpoint was the retreatment rate and subgroup analyses were performed to identify predictive factors of retreatment.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-seven patients were included with a median follow-up of 25.5 months. Seventy percent of patients had clinical stage T2, 64% had an ISUP score of 2 or 3 on initial biopsies and 38% were treated with hemi-ablation. Follow-up biopsies were performed in 76.6% of patients during follow-up with 21.8% having clinically significant cancers. The retreatment rate at 24 months was 37.2%, with positive biopsies being the primary criterion for retreatment. Patients with a PSA>8ng/mL had a significantly higher retreatment rate. Finally, morbidity remained acceptable with 5.8% of patients requiring reoperation for complications and 21% for de novo erectile dysfunction.

CONCLUSION

Our results are in agreement with those of the literature, seeming to indicate a lower morbidity of the focal treatment by HIFU compared to the radical treatments while offering an acceptable oncological control. Prospective randomized trials are ongoing.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Prophylactic Α-Blockers for Radiotherapy-Induced LUTS in Men with Prostate Cancer: A Phase III Randomized Trial Analysis

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Radiation therapy (RT) to the pelvis is one of the curative approaches for patients with localized prostate cancer. Most patients treated with prostate RT experience some degree of radiation-induced lower urinary tract symptoms (RI-LUTS). The present phase III randomized trial assessed the efficacy of prophylactic versus therapeutic α-blockers at improving RI-LUTS in prostate cancer patients receiving external beam radiotherapy (EBRT).

MATERIALS/METHODS

A total of 148 prostate cancer patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either prophylactic Silodosin at day one of EBRT or at the time of RI-LUTS. LUTS were quantified using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at regular intervals during the study. The primary endpoint was the change in the IPSS from baseline to the last day of radiotherapy (RT). Secondary endpoints included changes in IPSS from baseline to 4 weeks and 12 weeks after the start of RT.

RESULTS

Patient demographics, baseline IPSS and prescribed radiation doses were balanced between arms. On the last day of RT, the mean IPSS was 14.8 (SD 7.6) in the experimental arm and 15.7 (SD 8.5) in the control arm (95% CI -4.5 to 1.8, p = .40). There were no significant differences in IPSS between the study arms in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis at baseline, last day of RT, 4 weeks and 12 weeks post-RT. The as-treated analysis however, identified statistically significant difference at 4 weeks post-RT (95% CI -6.4 to -0.4, p = .03) in favor of prophylactic α-blockers. In an exploratory analysis, patients with prostate volumes less than or equal to 50 cc benefited at 4 weeks post-RT from prophylactic α-blocker (95% CI -8.4 to -0.3, p = .04).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic α-blocker was not effective at significantly reducing RI-LUTS in prostate cancer patients treated with EBRT. Treating patients with α-blocker at the onset of RI-LUTS will avoid unnecessary drug exposure and toxicity. There may be a benefit for prophylactic α-blocker in patients with smaller prostate. This however, needs to be further studied in a larger study.