ABSTRACT
Introduction/Background
Only 1 randomized controlled trial has compared focal therapy and active surveillance
(AS) for the low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). We investigated whether focal HIFU (fHIFU)
yields oncologic advantages over AS for low-risk PCa.
Materials and Methods
We included 2 non-randomized prospective series of 132 (fHIFU) and 421 (AS) consecutive
patients diagnosed with ISUP 1 PCa between 2008 and 2018. A matched pair analysis
was performed to decrease potential bias. Study main outcomes were freedom from radical
treatment (RT) or androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), treatment-free survival (TFS),
time to metastasis, and overall survival (OS).
Results
Median fHIFU follow-up was 50 months (interquartile range, 29-84 months). Among matched
variables, no major differences were recorded except for AS having more suspicious
digital rectal examination findings (P = .0074) and recent enrollment year (P = .0005). Five-year intervention-free survival from RT or ADT was higher for the
fHIFU cohort (67.4% vs. 53.8%; P = .0158). Time to treatment was approximately 10 months shorter for AS than for fHIFU
(time to RT, P = .0363; time to RT or ADT, P = .0156; time to any treatment, P = .0319). No differences were found in any-TFS (fHIFU, 61.4% vs. AS, 53.8%; P = .2635), OS (fHIFU, 97% vs. AS, 97%; P = .9237), or metastasis (n = 0 in fHIFU and n = 2 in AS; P = .4981). Major complications (≥ Clavien 3) were rare (n = 4), although 36.4% of
men experienced complications. No relevant changes were noted in continence (P = .3949).
Conclusion
At a 4-year median follow-up, fHIFU for mainly low-risk PCa (ISUP grade 1) is safe,
may decrease the need for radical treatment or ADT and may allow longer time to treatment
compared to AS. Nonetheless, no advantages are seen in PCa progression and/or death
(OS).
Abbreviations and Acronyms:
FT (focal therapy), PCa (prostate cancer), RCT (randomized controlled trials), OS (overall-survival), fHIFU (focal HIFU), ADT (androgen), FS (free survival), RT (radical treatment), RCT (randomized controlled trial)Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Clinical Genitourinary CancerAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Changing the prostate cancer management pathway: why focal therapy is a step forward.Arch Esp Urol. 2016; 69: 271
- New and established technology in focal ablation of the prostate: a systematic review.Eur Urol. 2017; 71: 17
- Analyzing the current practice patterns and views among urologists regarding focal therapy for prostate cancer.Urol Oncol. 2019; 37 (e1): 182
- Focal therapy in localised prostate cancer: real-world urological perspective explored in a cross-sectional European survey.Urol Oncol. 2018; 36 (e11): 529
- Consulting “Dr. Google” for prostate cancer treatment options: a contemporary worldwide trend analysis.Eur Urol Oncol. 2019; 3: 481
- Focal therapy in primary localised prostate cancer: the European Association of Urology position.Eur Urol. 2018; 74 (2018): 84
- Making a case “against” focal therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer.World J Urol. 2020; 39: 719
- ProtecT Study Group: 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.N Engl J Med. 2016; 375: 1415
- ProtecT Study Group: Ten-year mortality, disease progression, and treatment-related side effects in men with localised prostate cancer from the ProtecT randomised controlled trial according to treatment received.Eur Urol. 2020; 77: 320
- PCM301 Study Group: Padeliporfin vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy versus active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer (CLIN1001 PCM301): an open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial.Lancet Oncol. 2017; 18: 181
- Medium-term oncological outcomes in a large cohort of men treated with either focal or hemi-ablation using high-intensity focused ultrasonography for primary localized prostate cancer.BJU Int. 2019; 124: 431
- High intensity focused ultrasound hemigland ablation for prostate cancer: initial outcomes of a United States series.J Urol. 2020; 204: 741
- Prospective evaluation of focal high intensity focused ultrasound for localized prostate cancer.J Urol. 2020; 204: 483
- Focal therapy compared to radical prostatectomy for non-metastatic prostate cancer: a propensity score-matched study.Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021 Jun; 24: 567-574https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-020-00315-y
- Epub 2021 Jan 28.
- Focal therapy for localized prostate cancer with either HIFU or cryoablation: a single institution experience.J Urol. 2020; 203: 320
- Does mpMRI guidance improve HIFU partial gland ablation compared to conventional ultrasound guidance? Early functional outcomes and complications from a single center.Int Braz J Urol. 2020; 46: 984
- Follow-up in active surveillance for prostate cancer: strict protocol adherence remains important for PRIAS-ineligible patients.Eur Urol Oncol. 2019; 2: 483
- Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study.Eur Urol. 2007; 52: 1560
- A decade of active surveillance in the PRIAS study: an update and evaluation of the criteria used to recommend a switch to active treatment.Eur Urol. 2016; 70: 954
- European Association of Urology Guidelines Panel: Reporting and grading of complications after urologic surgical procedures: an ad hoc EAU Guidelines Panel assessment and recommendations.Eur Urol. 2012; 61: 341
- EvaluatioN of HIFU Hemiablation and short-term AndrogeN deprivation therapy Combination to Enhance prostate cancer control (ENHANCE) Study: Multimodal treatment in focal therapy for localized prostate cancer using concomitant short-term androgen deprivation therapy: the ENHANCE prospective pilot study.Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2019; 71: 544
- Pathological findings and magnetic resonance imaging concordance at salvage radical prostatectomy for local recurrence following partial ablation using high intensity focused ultrasound.J Urol. 2019; 201: 1134
- Prostate cancer death of men treated with initial active surveillance: clinical and biochemical characteristics.J Urol. 2010; 184: 131
- Focal Therapy Consensus Group: Utilization of focal therapy for patients discontinuing active surveillance of prostate cancer: recommendations of an international Delphi consensus.Urol Oncol Semin. 2021 Nov; 39: 781.e17-781.e24https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.01.027
- Epub 2021 Mar 4.
- Comparative Healthcare Research Outcomes of Novel Surgery in prostate cancer (IP4-CHRONOS): a prospective, multi-centre therapeutic phase II parallel randomised control trial.Contemp Clin Trials. 2020; 93105999
- Intermediate clinical endpoints for surrogacy in localised prostate cancer: an aggregate meta-analysis.Lancet Oncol. 2021; 22: 402-410https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30730-0
- Salvage robotic prostatectomy following whole gland high-intensity focused ultrasound with a Sonablate 500 device: technical feasibility and safety.J Rob Surg. 2017; 11: 217-221https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0649-x
- Long-term Outcomes of Focal Cryotherapy for Low- to Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: Results and Matched Pair Analysis with Active Surveillance.Eur Urol Focus. 2021; (S2405-4569(21)00114-0Online ahead of print)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2021.04.008
- Molecular biomarkers in the context of focal therapy for prostate cancer: recommendations of a Delphi Consensus from the Focal Therapy Society.Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2021; (Online ahead of print)https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.20.04160-0
Article info
Publication history
Published online: June 29, 2022
Accepted:
June 6,
2022
Received in revised form:
June 5,
2022
Received:
March 7,
2022
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
