Search

Purpose: Magnetic resonance imaging-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation uses directional thermal ultrasound under magnetic resonance imaging thermometry feedback control for prostatic ablation. We report 12-month outcomes from a prospective multicenter trial (TACT)., Materials and Methods: A total of 115 men with favorable to intermediate risk prostate cancer across 13 centers were treated with whole gland ablation sparing the urethra and apical sphincter. The co-primary 12-month endpoints were safety and efficacy., Results: In all, 72 (63%) had grade group 2 and 77 (67%) had NCCN® intermediate risk disease. Median treatment delivery time was 51 minutes with 98% (IQR 95-99) thermal coverage of target volume and spatial ablation precision of ±1.4 mm on magnetic resonance imaging thermometry. Grade 3 adverse events occurred in 9 (8%) men. The primary endpoint (U.S. Food and Drug Administration mandated) of prostate specific antigen reduction ≥75% was achieved in 110 of 115 (96%) with median prostate specific antigen reduction of 95% and nadir of 0.34 ng/ml. Median prostate volume decreased from 37 to 3 cc. Among 68 men with pretreatment grade group 2 disease, 52 (79%) were free of grade group 2 disease on 12-month biopsy. Of 111 men with 12-month biopsy data, 72 (65%) had no evidence of cancer. Erections (International Index of Erectile Function question 2 score 2 or greater) were maintained/regained in 69 of 92 (75%). Multivariate predictors of persistent grade group 2 at 12 months included intraprostatic calcifications at screening, suboptimal magnetic resonance imaging thermal coverage of target volume and a PI-RADS™ 3 or greater lesion at 12-month magnetic resonance imaging (p <0.05)., Conclusions: The TACT study of magnetic resonance imaging-guided transurethral ultrasound whole gland ablation in men with localized prostate cancer demonstrated effective tissue ablation and prostate specific antigen reduction with low rates of toxicity and residual disease.

Purpose: We examine differences in screening, detection, staging and treatment of prostate cancer between urologists in the United States and Canada., Materials and Methods: An anonymous questionnaire was developed and mailed to 700 randomly selected American and 350 Canadian urologists. The 7 domains of prostate cancer management comprised screening/case identification, radical prostatectomy indications, staging evaluations, neoadjuvant therapy, nerve sparing techniques, postoperative management and treatment of biochemical recurrence. The Dillman method of questionnaire administration was used. All data were stratified by country and analyzed using the generalized chi-square test., Results: Surveys were adequately completed by 45% and 79% of American and Canadian urologists, respectively. Practice experience and clinical volumes were not significantly different between the 2 cohorts. Overall, there were few differences in prostate cancer screening, staging, postoperative management, biochemical failure and use of neoadjuvant therapy. However, practicing American urologists tended to pursue more aggressive case finding practices, such as a higher age cutoff for prostate specific antigen testing (p = 0.0001) and more frequent use of transition zone biopsies (p = 0.0001). American urologists also displayed a tendency toward more liberal indication for extirpative surgery. They were more likely to perform radical prostatectomy in men older than 70 years, those with higher prostate specific antigen and those with node positive disease. Among both national cohorts there was considerable variation in management patterns for all domains of prostate cancer. Variation was most common among treatment of patients with adverse pathological conditions (positive margins, seminal vesicle involvement) and postoperative biochemical failure. Even when credible evidence exists (biopsy technique, preoperative staging) significant proportions of urologists in both countries continued to practice contrary to existing data., Conclusions: American and Canadian practice patterns for prostate cancer differ significantly only in the domains of case identification and surgical indications. In addition, considerable intra-national variation in practice patterns exists. These data highlight the necessity to support randomized clinical trials in prostate cancer.