Search

Purpose: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common oncologic disease among men. Radical treatment with curative intent provides good oncological results for PCa survivors, although definitive therapy is associated with significant number of serious side-effects. In modern-era of medicine tissue-sparing techniques, such as focal HIFU, have been proposed for PCa patients in order to provide cancer control equivalent to the standard-of-care procedures while reducing morbidities and complications. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the available evidence about focal HIFU therapy as a primary treatment for localized PCa. Material and methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature review of focal HIFU therapy in the MEDLINE database (PROSPERO: CRD42021235581). Articles published in the English language between 2010 and 2020 with more than 50 patients were included. Results: Clinically significant in-field recurrence and out-of-field progression were detected to 22% and 29% PCa patients, respectively. Higher ISUP grade group, more positive cores at biopsy and bilateral disease were identified as the main risk factors for disease recurrence. The most common strategy for recurrence management was definitive therapy. Six months after focal HIFU therapy 98% of patients were totally continent and 80% of patients retained sufficient erections for sexual intercourse. The majority of complications presented in the early postoperative period and were classified as low-grade. Conclusions: This review highlights that focal HIFU therapy appears to be a safe procedure, while short-term cancer control rate is encouraging. Though, second-line treatment or active surveillance seems to be necessary in a significant number of patients.

Introduction: The health-related QoL is a patient-centered evaluation covering several aspects. This evaluation seems to be particularly important in patients submitted to radical cystectomy (RC) and urinary diversion with ileal conduit (IC) or a neobladder (NB). Objective: Review all recent data comparing QoL outcomes after radical cystectomy with NB and IC diversions. Evidence Acquisition: A systematic search in PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement in December 2018. All articles published from January 01, 2012 to December 31, 2018, were included. A study was considered relevant if it compared QoL outcomes using validated questionnaires (EORTC QLQ C30, FACT-G, FACT-BL, FACT-VCI, and BCI). Evidence Synthesis: In 11 included studies, a total of 1389 participants were accounted (730 NB and 659 IC cases). The studies were conducted in 8 different countries, two were prospective, and none was randomized. There were two studies favoring results with a neobladder, 3 with incontinent diversion and 6 with no differences. The EORTC-QLQ-C30 was the most used instrument (5 studies) followed by FACT VCI and BCI (3 studies each). Given the heterogeneity of data and lack of prospective studies, a meta-analysis was not performed. Conclusion: No superiority of one urinary diversion was characterized. It seems that the choice must be individualized with an extensive preoperative orientation of the patient and their relatives. That will probably influence how the patient accepts the new condition.