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.

Focal instead of whole gland ablation for prostate cancer has been proposed to decrease treatment morbidity. We sought to determine differences in erectile function and urinary continence after focal and whole gland ablation for prostate cancer.From 2009 to 2018, 346 patients underwent high intensity focused ultrasound or cryotherapy for prostate cancer. Urinary continence was defined as use of no pads and sexual potency as enough erection for sexual penetration. Logistic regressions to treatment groups and covariates age, prostate specific antigen, International Society of Urological Pathology grading, prostate volume and energy modality were performed to access the effect of focal therapy in sexual potency and urinary continence after 3 and 12 months. IIEF-5 (International Index of Erectile Function) and I-PSS (International Prostate Symptom Score) questionnaires were evaluated. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for potential baseline differences between groups.After exclusion, 195 post-focal therapy and 105 post-whole gland therapy patients were included in analysis. No significant difference was seen in baseline I-PSS and IIEF-5 scores. In multivariate models focal therapy was the most important factor related to sexual potency at 3 (OR 7.7) and 12 months (OR 3.9). Median IIEF-5 score at 3 months was 12 and 5 (p0.001), and at 12 months was 13 and 9 (p=0.04) in focal therapy and whole gland therapy groups, respectively. Focal therapy was the only factor related to continence (OR 0.7, p0.001). Results remained significant after propensity score matching.Focal ablation instead of whole gland therapy is the most important factor related to better sexual and urinary continence recovery after high intensity focused ultrasound and cryotherapy for prostate cancer.

Purpose To review the current evidence regarding protocols and outcomes of image-guided focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa). Methods A literature search of the latest published studies assessing primary FT for PCa was carried out in Medline and Cochrane library databases followed by a critical review. FT modalities, follow-up strategies, and oncological and toxicity outcomes were summarized and discussed in this review. Results Twenty-four studies with six different sources of energy met the inclusion criteria. A heterogeneity of patient selection, energy sources, treatment templates, and definitions of failure was found among the studies. While a third of patients may be found to have additional cancer burden over 3-5 years following FT, most patients will remain free of a radical procedure. The vast majority of patients maintain urinary continence and good erectile function after FT. Acute urinary retention is the most common complication, whilst severe complications remain rare. Conclusion An increasing number of prospective studies with longer follow-up have been recently published. Acceptable cancer control and low treatment toxicity after FT have been consistently reported. Follow-up imaging and routine biopsy must be encouraged post-FT. While there is no reliable PSA threshold to predict failure after FT, reporting post-FT positive biopsies and retreatment rates appear to be standard when assessing treatment efficacy.

Purpose:We compared cancer detection rates in patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging cognitive guided micro-ultrasound biopsy vs robotic ultrasound magnetic resonance imaging fusion biop...

We report oncologic outcomes in patients treated with focal therapy for prostate cancer.We retrospectively analyzed a single institution cohort of men with localized prostate cancer who received focal therapy using high intensity focused ultrasound or cryotherapy from 2009 to 2018. Focal therapy was offered for low or intermediate risk disease (prostate specific antigen less than 20 ng/ml, Gleason score 7 or less and clinical stage T2b or less). Patients with previous prostate cancer treatment or less than 6 months of followup were excluded from study. Failure was defined as local or systemic salvage treatment, a positive biopsy Gleason score of 7 or greater in-field or out-of-field in nontreated patients, prostate cancer metastasis or prostate cancer specific death. Cox regression analysis was done to identify independent predictors of failure after focal therapy.Of the 309 patients included in study 190 and 119 were treated with high intensity focused ultrasound and cryotherapy, respectively. Median followup was 45 months. At 1, 3 and 5 years the failure-free survival rate was 95%, 67% and 54%, and the radical treatment-free survival rate was 99%, 79% and 67%, respectively. The 5-year metastasis-free survival rate was 98% and no prostate cancer specific death was registered in this cohort. Before focal therapy a biopsy Gleason score of 7 (3 + 4) or greater (HR 2.4, p0.001) and nadir prostate specific antigen (HR 2.2, p0.001) were independently associated with failed focal therapy. In the salvage focal therapy setting in-field recurrence after primary focal therapy was associated with poorer failure-free survival (p=0.02).Almost half of the men were free of focal therapy failure 5 years after treatment. Still, a significant proportion experienced recurrence at the midterm followup. The preoperative biopsy Gleason score and nadir prostate specific antigen were significantly associated with treatment failure.

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.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).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).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).

There are few data on the outcomes and toxicity of radical prostatectomy (RP) among men experiencing local recurrence of prostate cancer (PC) following focal therapy (FT). To characterise perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes after salvage robot-assisted RP (S-RALP) and determine the risk factors for S-RALP failure, we conducted a multicentre cohort study of 82 patients undergoing S-RALP after FT. All had histological confirmation of PC recurrence, with metastatic disease excluded using pelvic magnetic resonance imaging, a bone scan, and/or positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Progression-free survival was 74%, 48%, and 36% at 12, 24, and 36mo after surgery, respectively. The 12-mo continence rate was 83%. There were no intraoperative complications and no major postoperative complications. On multivariable analysis, only infield recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] 3.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-12.85; p=0.03) and pT3b stage (HR 5.0, 95% CI 1.53-16.39; p=0.008) were independent predictors of recurrence. This study represents the largest series of salvage surgery after FT and shows that this approach is safe with no increase in toxicity when compared to primary RALP. Men identified as having infield recurrence after FT appear to have phenotypically aggressive disease and should be counselled regarding the potential need for a multimodal therapeutic approach. PATIENT SUMMARY: Robotic surgery after focal therapy for prostate cancer is safe and achieves postoperative continence results similar to those for robotic radical prostatectomy in treatment-naïve patients. However, if the cancer recurrence is within the previously treated field, the oncological prognosis seems to be worse.

Whether focal therapy (FT) jeopardizes subsequent prostate cancer (PCa) salvage treatments, when needed, remains a major concern and is largely unknown. To describe and report safety, oncological and functional outcomes of salvage treatments following PCa recurrence and/or persistence after FT. A systematic review on salvage treatments for PCa recurrence/persistence after FT was carried out according to the PRISMA guidelines using an ‘a priori protocol’. A comprehensive literature review was also performed to investigate options to treat FT PCa recurrence/persistence that have not yet been reported after FT. Four retrospective series were included (n = 67 men); overall quality of the studies was low. Salvage treatments yielded 32.8% (n = 22 of 67) biochemical recurrence rate (BCR) after a 7–62-months mean follow-up. No cancer-related deaths occurred. Patients experienced acceptable complications (n = 12 patients; n = 8 Clavien 3) and rare severe incontinence (4.5% using > 2 pads/day). Erectile function (EF) was rarely assessed (62.8% no information available), being overall poor. Other salvage options have been reported following whole-gland ablation and include: (1) re-do ablation yielding worst BCR and EF but similar complications and continence compared to first line ablation; (2) salvage radiotherapy yielding 16.6–38.8% BCR and acceptable toxicity profile with urinary and EF being poorly assessed. Current evidence is weak and limited to a few retrospective series. Oncological control is acceptable although it seems lower compared to a primary treatment setting. Functional outcomes are comparable to primary treatment with the exception of EF; overall, suggesting FT has little impact on subsequent salvage treatments. Future studies are needed to confirm the current findings.

We assessed whether prostate cancer (PCa) location might affect oncologic outcomes after focal therapy (FT) for PCa.We identified 274 men receiving FT for PCa using either high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) or cryotherapy at a high volume center between 2009 and 2018. Survival analyses using Kaplan-Meier method were used to assess any additional treatment and radical treatment rates according to PCa location. Propensity-score match analysis was used to compare oncologic outcomes of HIFU vs cryotherapy according to PCa location. Covariates were prostate specific antigen, clinical stage, prostate volume, Gleason score, maximum cancer core length, percentage of positive cores and treatment modality.A total of 166 and 108 men received FT with HIFU and cryotherapy, respectively. Overall, 39% (106) and 31% (85) received at least an additional treatment and a radical treatment after FT, respectively, with a median followup of 51 months. At 36 months' followup, the rates of any additional treatment-free survival were 71%, 75%, and 69% for patients with basal, mid-prostate and apical disease, respectively (p=0.7). At multivariable logistic regression analysis, PCa location was not significantly associated with higher risk of either any additional treatment or radical treatment (all p0.4). After matching, there was no difference between HIFU vs cryotherapy in terms of any additional treatment rates according to PCa location.The PCa location does not significantly affect the rate of failure after FT. The presence of an apical lesion should not be considered an exclusion criteria for FT. Both HIFU and cryotherapy likely achieve similar medium-term oncologic results regardless of PCa location.

To date, only one trial compared focal therapy and active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). In addition, long-term outcomes of focal cryotherapy (FC) are lacking.Our aim was to evaluate long-term outcomes of FC and compare them with AS.We included two prospective series of 121 (FC) and 459 (AS) consecutive patients (2008-2018) for low- to intermediate-risk PCa.Study outcomes were radical therapy-free or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)-free, any treatment-free, metastasis-free, and overall survival. A matched pair analysis was performed using seven covariates.The median FC follow-up was 85 mo (interquartile range 58-104); 92 (76%) men had International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 1. Among matched variables, no significant differences were present except for cT stage and year of entry (both p0.01). Ten-year radical therapy-free or ADT-free, any treatment-free, metastasis-free, and overall survival were 51%, 40.2%, 93.9%, and 97%, respectively for FC. No differences were noted with AS (all p0.05), with the exception of time to radical therapy, time to radical therapy and ADT, and time to any treatment, all being shorter for AS (all p0.01). Freedom from radical treatment or ADT was higher for FC (AS 10 yr 39.3%; p = 0.04). Complications were relatively rare (26.5%) and mainly of low grade (Clavien2, n = 3); three men developed incontinence (p = 0.0814), while both International Index of Erectile Function 5 and International Prostate Symptom Score scores increased (p = 0.0287 and p = 0.0165, respectively). Limitations include absence of randomization.At an early long-term follow-up, FC in the context of mainly low-risk PCa is safe and increases time to radical therapy but does not provide meaningful oncological advantages compared with AS.We compared focal cryotherapy with active surveillance mainly for low-risk prostate cancer. Focal cryotherapy, despite having fewer complications, did not yield meaningful advantages over active surveillance at 10 yr. Active surveillance should be preferred to focal cryotherapy for these patients.

For a long time, the treatment options for localized prostate cancer (PCa) were active treatment, radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RT), which have excellent oncologic outcomes, however, associated to considerable complications rates, especially erectile dysfunction (ED) and urinary incontinence (UI), worsening quality of life (QoL). This chapter examines salvage therapy after focal therapy.

This review provides an overview of the available ablative options for prostate cancer (PCa) management. It contemplates the ablative concepts and the role of prostate ablation in different settings, from primary treatment to repeat ablation, and as an alternative to radiorecurrent disease. Improvements in prostate imaging have allowed us to ablate prostate lesions through thermal, mechanical, and vascular-targeted sources of energy. Partial gland ablation (PGA) has an emerging role in the management of localized PCa because toxicity outcomes have been proven less harmful compared with whole-gland treatments. Although long-term oncological outcomes are yet to be consolidated in comparative studies, recent large series and prospective studies in PGA have reported encouraging results. A second ablation after disease recurrence has demonstrated low toxicity, and future studies must define its potential to avoid radical treatments. PGA is an attractive option for PCa management in different scenarios because of its low-toxicity profile. As expected, recurrence rates are higher than those seen in whole-gland procedures. Long-term oncological outcomes of primary and salvage options are required to endorse it among the standard treatments.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Most of focal therapies has addressed index lesion as the targeted tumour focus to treat localized prostate cancer (PCa), a multifocal disease. The interaction between tumour foci and host cells creates a tumour microenvironment (TME) which affects tumour growth, cellular proliferation, and PCa progression. This review aims to better understand the biology of cancer foci and their interaction with the prostatic microenvironment after focal therapy. RECENT FINDINGS: Index lesions are representative of PCa grade in low-risk patients, but the other foci of tumour, the satellite lesions, gain relevance in higher risk patients. Multiparametric MRI, guided biopsies and new biomarkers in combination are important to address PCa multifocality and to adequately select patients to focal therapy. Stromal, immune, and tumoural components are integrated in tumourigenesis and modified after the inflammation induced by focal therapy. SUMMARY: TME and inflammation play an important role in PCa progression, but further researches are necessary to understand how once protective components of prostate microenvironment become protumour elements and how inflammation induced by focal therapy can affect them. Learning how to modulate TME is an exploratory molecular field that can lead us to better manage PCa in both prevention and treatment scenarios.

Background Radical prostatectomy (RP) has been used as the main primary treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) for many years with excellent oncologic results. However, approximately 20-40% of those patients has failed to RP and presented biochemical recurrence (BCR). Prostatic specific antigen (PSA) has been the pivotal tool for recurrence diagnosis, but there is no consensus about the best PSA threshold to define BCR until this moment. The natural history of BCR after surgical procedure is highly variable, but it is important to distinguish biochemical and clinical recurrence and to find the correct timing to start multimodal treatment strategy. Also, it is important to understand the role of each clinical and pathological feature of prostate cancer in BCR, progression to metastatic disease and cancer specific mortality (CSM). Review design A simple review was made in Medline for articles written in English language about biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Objective To provide an updated assessment of BCR definition, its meaning, PCa natural history after BCR and the weight of each clinical/pathological feature and risk group classifications in BCR, metastatic disease and CSM.

We assessed the impact of focal therapy on perioperative, oncologic and functional outcomes in men who underwent salvage robotic assisted radical prostatectomy compared to primary robotic assisted radical prostatectomy.Focal therapy was performed in patients presenting with Gleason score 3 + 3 or 3 + 4, clinical stage cT2a or less, serum prostate specific antigen 15 ng/ml or less, unilateral positive biopsy, maximum length of any positive core less than 10 mm and life expectancy greater than 10 years. Focal therapy was defined as target ablation of the index lesion plus a 1 cm safety margin in the normal ipsilateral prostatic parenchyma. The salvage group included 22 men who underwent salvage prostatectomy after focal therapy failure. The primary group was defined using matched pair 1:2 selection of 44 of 2,750 patients treated with primary prostatectomy. The primary and secondary end points were the between group differences in functional and oncologic outcomes, respectively.Complication rates were comparable (p0.05). Pad-free probability was comparable between the groups at 1 and 2 years (p = 0.8). Recovery of erectile function was significantly lower after salvage robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (p = 0.008), which also showed a significantly lower probability of cumulative biochemical recurrence-free survival compared to primary robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (56.3% vs 92.4% at 2 years, p = 0.001). Salvage prostatectomy demonstrated a significantly increased risk of biochemical recurrence (HR 4.8, 95% CI 1.67-13.76, p = 0.004). Study limitations included the retrospective nature, the lack of randomization and the short followup.Salvage robotic assisted radical prostatectomy after focal therapy failure is feasible with acceptable complication rates. However, patients assigned to primary focal therapy should be advised about a poorer prognosis in terms of oncologic control and lower erectile recovery rates in case of a future salvage surgery.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES:Failure and need of retreatment after focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa) has been seen in more than one third of patients in mid-term follow-up. In this study,...

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES:Focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa) presents non-negligible rates of disease recurrence. We aim to assess the outcomes of redoing FT (s-FT) after FT failure as ...

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES:We aimed to compare the cancer detection rates in patients who underwent micro-ultrasound biopsy (MB) versus Robotic ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsie...

Prostate cancer (PCa) is stratified into different risk categories based on the patient's prognosis. High-risk disease was formerly characterized by an increased risk of metastasis and lethality, requiring complex treatments. Surgery was recently highlighted to have a pivotal role for the treatment of such cases, even as monotherapy. In the past, open radical prostatectomy was performed for most patients with high-risk PCa; however, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) emerged as a reasonable option because it provided optimal outcomes for low- and intermediate-risk PCa. Robust studies are lacking to properly assess the role of RARP for high-risk PCa. We summarize this knowledge and present a literature review on the perioperative recovery and functional and oncologic outcomes of RARP for the treatment of patients with high-risk PCa.

Introduction: Prostate cancer is one of the tumors with higher incidence and mortality among men in the World. Epidemiological data are influenced by life expectancy of population, available diagnostic methods, correct collection of data and quality of health services. Screening of the disease is not standardized around the World. Up till now there is no consensus about the risks versus benefits of early detection. There are still missing data about this pathology in Latin America. Objective: to revise current epidemiologic situation and early diagnosis policies of prostate cancer in Brazil and Latin America. Materials and Methods: Medline, Cochrane Library and SciELO databases were reviewed on the subject of epidemiology and screening of prostate cancer. Screening research was performed in websites on national public health organizations and Latin America. Screening recommendations were obtained from those governmental organizations and from Latin American urological societies and compared to the most prominent regulatory agencies and societies of specialists and generalists from around the World. Results: Brazil and Latin America have a special position in relation to incidence and mortality of prostate cancer. In Brazil, it occupies the first position regarding incidence of cancer in men and the second cause of mortality. Central America has the highest rate of mortality of the continent with lower incidence/mortality ratios. Screening recommendations are very distinct, mainly among regulatory organs and urological societies. Conclusion: prostate cancer epidemiology is an important health public topic. Data collection related to incidence and mortality is still precarious, especially in less developed countries. It is necessary to follow-up long term screening studies results in order to conclude its benefits.