Search

ABSTRACT 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.

ABSTRACT Background: Non-metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (M0 CRPC) has seen important developments in drugs and diagnostic tools in the last two years. New hormonal agents have demonstrated improvement in metastasis free survival in M0 CRPC patients and have been approved by regulatory agencies in Brazil. Additionally, newer and more sensitive imaging tools are able to detect metastasis earlier than before, which will impact the percentage of patients staged as M0 CRPC. Based on the available international guidelines, a group of Brazilian urology and medical oncology experts developed and completed a survey on the diagnosis and treatment of M0 CRPC in Brazil. These results are reviewed and summarized and associated recommendations are provided. Objective: To present survey results on management of M0 CRPC in Brazil. Design, setting, and participants: A panel of six Brazilian prostate cancer experts determined 64 questions concerning the main areas of interest: 1) staging tools, 2) treatments, 3) side effects of systemic treatment/s, and 4) osteoclast-targeted therapy. A larger panel of 28 Brazilian prostate cancer experts answered these questions in order to create country-specific recommendations discussed in this manuscript. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on the predefined questions. These answers are the panelists' opinions, not a literature review or meta-analysis. Therapies not yet approved in Brazil were excluded from answer options. Each question had five to seven relevant answers including two non-answers. Results were tabulated in real time. Conclusions: The results and recommendations presented can be used by Brazilian physicians to support the management of M0 CRPC patients. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data, however, for Brazil, guidelines for diagnosis and management of M0 CRPC patients have not been developed. This document will serve as a point of reference when confronting this disease stage.

ABSTRACT Background: The diagnostic value and suitability of prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) have been inconsistent in previous studies. Thus, the aim of the present meta-analysis was performed to systematically evaluate the diagnostic value of PCA3 for PCa. Materials and Methods: A meta-analysis was performed to search relevant studies using online databases EMBASE, PubMed and Web of Science published until February 1st, 2019. Ultimately, 65 studies met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis with 8.139 cases and 14.116 controls. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios (LR+), negative likelihood ratios (LR−), and other measures of PCA3 were pooled and determined to evaluate the diagnostic rate of PCa by the random-effect model. Results: With PCA3, the pooled overall diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, LR+, LR−, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for predicting significant PCa were 0.68 (0.64-0.72), 0.72 (0.68-0.75), 2.41 (2.16-2.69), 0.44 (0.40-0.49), respectively. Besides, the summary diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and 95% CIs for PCA3 was 5.44 (4.53-6.53). In addition, the area under summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves and 95% CIs was 0.76 (0.72-0.79). The major design deficiencies of included studies were differential verification bias, and a lack of clear inclusion and exclusion criteria. Conclusions: The results of this meta-analysis suggested that PCA3 was a non-invasive method with the acceptable sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of PCa, to distinguish between patients and healthy individuals. To validate the potential applicability of PCA3 in the diagnosis of PCa, more rigorous studies were needed to confirm these conclusions.

ABSTRACT Purpose: Propose an approach of prostate cancer (PCa) patients during COVID-19 pandemic. Material and Methods: We conducted a review of current literature related to surgical and clinical management of patients during COVID-19 crisis paying special attention to oncological ones and especially those suffering from PCa. Based on these publications and current urological guidelines, a manual to manage PCa patients is suggested. Results: Patients suffering from cancer are likely to develop serious complications from COVID-19 disease together with an increased risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Therefore, the management of oncological patients should be taken into special consideration and most of the treatments postponed. In case the procedure is not deferrable, it should be adapted to the current situation. While the shortest radiotherapy (RT) regimens should be applied, surgical procedures must undergo the following recommendations proposed by main surgical associations. PCa prognosis is generally favourable and therefore one can safely delay most of the biopsies up to 6 months without interfering with survival outcomes in the vast majority of cases. In the same way, most of the localised PCa patients are suitable for active surveillance (AS) or hormonal therapy until local definitive treatment could be reconsidered. In metastatic as well as castration resistant PCa stages, adding androgen receptor targeted agents (abiraterone, apalutamide, darolutamide or enzalutamide) to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) could be considered in high risk patients. On the contrary, chemotherapy, immunotherapy and Radium-223 must be avoided with regard to the consequence of hematologic toxicity and risk of COVID-19 infection because of immunodepression. Conclusions: Most of the biopsies should be delayed while AS is advised in those patients with low risk PCa. ADT allows us to defer definitive local treatment in many cases of intermediate and high risk PCa. In regard to metastatic and castration resistant PCa, combination therapies with abiraterone, apalutamide, darolutamide or enzalutamide could be considered. Chemotherapy, Radium-223 and immunotherapy are discouraged.

Objective We compared positive surgical margin (PSM) rates for patients with high risk prostate cancer (HRCaP) who underwent open radical retropubic (RRP), robotic (RALP), and laparoscopic (LRP) prostatectomy at a single institution. Materials and Methods We performed a retrospective review of our prospectively maintained IRB approved database identifying prostate cancer patients who underwent RRP, RALP, or LRP between January 2000 and March 2010. Patients were considered to have HRCaP if they had biopsy or final pathologic Gleason score ≥ 8, or preoperative PSA ≥ 20, or pathologic stage ≥ T3a. A positive surgical margin (PSM) was defined by the presence of tumor at the inked surface of the specimen. Patients who received neoadjuvant hormonal therapy and those who underwent a perineal prostatectomy were excluded from the study. Results Of the 445 patients in this study, surgical technique for prostatectomy included RRP (n = 153), RALP (n = 152), and LRP (n = 140). PSM rate for the three groups were not different: 52.9% RRP, 50% RALP, and 41.4% LRP, (p = 0.13). The PSM rate did not differ when comparing RRP to a combined group of RALP and LRP (p = 0.16). Among patients with a PSM, there was no statistical difference between the three groups in terms of the number of patients with a pathologic stage of T3 or higher (p = 0.83). On univariate analysis, a higher preoperative PSA value was associated with a positive margin (p = 0.04). Conclusion In this HRCaP series, the PSM rate did not differ based on the surgical approach. On univariate analysis, patients with a higher preoperative PSA value were more likely to have a PSM.

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., Competing Interests: None declared., (Copyright® by the International Brazilian Journal of Urology.)

Introduction: The therapeutic role of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in prostate cancer (PCa) is unknown due to absence of randomized trials., Objective: to present a critical review on the therapeutic benefits of PLND in high risk localized PCa patients., Materials and Methods: A search of the literature on PLND was performed using PubMed, Cochrane, and Medline database. Articles obtained regarding diagnostic imaging and sentinel lymph node dissection, PLND extension, impact of PLND on survival, PLND in node positive "only" disease and PLND surgical risks were critically reviewed., Results: High-risk PCa commonly develops metastases. In these patients, the possibility of presenting lymph node disease is high. Thus, extended PLND during radical prostatectomy may be recommended in selected patients with localized high-risk PCa for both accurate staging and therapeutic intent. Although recent advances in detecting patients with lymph node involvement (LNI) with novel imaging and sentinel node dissection, extended PLND continues to be the most accurate method to stage lymph node disease, which may be related to the number of nodes removed. However, extended PLND increases surgical time, with potential impact on perioperative complications, hospital length of stay, rehospitalization and healthcare costs. Controversy persists on its therapeutic benefit, particularly in patients with high node burden., Conclusion: The impact of PLND on biochemical recurrence and PCa survival is unclear yet. Selection of patients may benefit from extended PLND but the challenge remains to identify them accurately. Only prospective randomized study would answer the precise role of PLND in high-risk pelvis confined PCa patients., Competing Interests: None declared., (Copyright® by the International Brazilian Journal of Urology.)

Introduction: Prostate cancer (PC) is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in males. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, a non-invasive diagnostic tool to evaluate PC with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) expression, has emerged as a more accurate alternative to assess disease staging. We aimed to identify predictors of positive 68Ga-PSMA PET and the accuracy of this technique., Materials and Methods: Diagnostic accuracy cross-sectional study with prospective and retrospective approaches. We performed a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase database in search of studies including PC patients submitted to radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy with curative intent and presented biochemical recurrence following ASTRO 1996 criteria. A total of 35 studies involving 3910 patients submitted to 68-Ga-PSMA PET were included and independently assessed by two authors: 8 studies on diagnosis, four on staging, and 23 studies on restaging purposes. The significance level was α=0.05., Results: pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 (0.86-0.93) and 0.90 (0.82-0.96), respectively, for diagnostic purposes; as for staging, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.93 (0.86-0.98) and 0.96 (0.92-0.99), respectively. In the restaging scenario, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.76 (0.74-0.78) and 0.45 (0.27-0.58), respectively, considering the identification of prostate cancer in each described situation. We also obtained specificity and sensitivity results for PSA subdivisions., Conclusion: 68Ga-PSMA PET provides higher sensitivity and specificity than traditional imaging for prostate cancer., Competing Interests: None declared., (Copyright® by the International Brazilian Journal of Urology.)

Purpose: Incidence and mortality of prostate cancer (PCa) are still increasing in developing countries. Limited access to the health system or more aggressive disease are potential reasons for this. Ethnic and social differences in developed countries seem to make inappropriate to extrapolate data from other centers. We aim to report the epidemiological profile of a PSA-screened population from a cancer center in Brazil., Materials and Methods: We retrospectively selected 9.692 men enrolled in a PCa prevention program, comprising total PSA level and digital rectal examination at the first appointment, associated with complementary tests when necessary. Men aged over 40 years-old were included after shared decision-making process. Prostate biopsy (TRUS) was performed when clinically suspected for PCa. After the diagnosis, patients underwent appropriate treatment., Results: TRUS was performed in 5.5% of men and PCa incidence was 2.6%. Overall ratio between number of patients who needed to be screened in order to diagnose one cancer was 38.9 patients, with 2.1 biopsies performed to diagnose a cancer. Positive predictive value (PPV) of TRUS biopsy in this strategy was 47.2%, varying from 38.5% (<50 years-old) to 60% (>80 years-old). We evidenced 70 patients (27.9%) classified as low risk tumors, 74 (29.5%) as intermediate risk, and 107 (42.6%) as high-risk disease., Conclusions: PSA-screening remains controversial in literature. In front of a huge miscegenated people and considering the big proportion of high-risk PCa, even in young men diagnosed with the disease, it is imperative to inform patients and health providers about these data particularities in Brazil., Competing Interests: None declared., (Copyright® by the International Brazilian Journal of Urology.)

Prostate cancer is the most common invasive cancer in men. Radical prostatectomy (RP) is a definitive treatment option, but biochemical recurrence can reach 40%. Salvage lymphadenectomy is a relatively recent approach to oligometasis and has been rapidly diffused primarily due to improvement in imaging diagnosis and results showing possibly promising therapy. A systematic literature review was performed in March 2020, according to the PRISMA statement. We excluded studies with patients with suspicion or confirmation of visceral and / or bone metastases. A total of 27 articles were included in the study. All studies evaluated were single arm, and there were no randomized studies in the literature. A total of 1,714 patients received salvage lymphadenectomy after previous treatment for localized prostate cancer. RP was the most used initial therapeutic approach, and relapses were based on PET / CT diagnosis, with Coline-11C being the most widely used radiopharmaceutical. Biochemical response rates ranged from 0% to 80%. The 5 years - Free Survival Biochemical recurrence was analyzed in 16 studies with rates of 0% up to 56.1%. The articles do not present high levels of evidence to draw strong conclusions. However, even if significant rates of biochemical recurrence are not evident in all studies, therapy directed to lymph node metastases may present good oncological results and postpone the onset of systemic therapy. The long-term impact in overall survival and quality of life, as well as the best strategies for case selection remains to be determined., Competing Interests: None declared., (Copyright® by the International Brazilian Journal of Urology.)

Background: Non-metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (M0 CRPC) has seen important developments in drugs and diagnostic tools in the last two years. New hormonal agents have demonstrated improvement in metastasis free survival in M0 CRPC patients and have been approved by regulatory agencies in Brazil. Additionally, newer and more sensitive imaging tools are able to detect metastasis earlier than before, which will impact the percentage of patients staged as M0 CRPC. Based on the available international guidelines, a group of Brazilian urology and medical oncology experts developed and completed a survey on the diagnosis and treatment of M0 CRPC in Brazil. These results are reviewed and summarized and associated recommendations are provided., Objective: To present survey results on management of M0 CRPC in Brazil., Design, Setting, and Participants: A panel of six Brazilian prostate cancer experts determined 64 questions concerning the main areas of interest: 1) staging tools, 2) treatments, 3) side effects of systemic treatment/s, and 4) osteoclast-targeted therapy. A larger panel of 28 Brazilian prostate cancer experts answered these questions in order to create country-specific recommendations discussed in this manuscript. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on the predefined questions. These answers are the panelists' opinions, not a literature review or meta-analysis. Therapies not yet approved in Brazil were excluded from answer options. Each question had five to seven relevant answers including two non-answers. Results were tabulated in real time., Conclusions: The results and recommendations presented can be used by Brazilian physicians to support the management of M0 CRPC patients. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data, however, for Brazil, guidelines for diagnosis and management of M0 CRPC patients have not been developed. This document will serve as a point of reference when confronting this disease stage., Competing Interests: None declared., (Copyright® by the International Brazilian Journal of Urology.)

Background: Focal therapy (FT) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) treatment is raising interest. New technological mpMRI-US guided FT devices have never been compared with the previous generation of ultrasound-only guided devices., Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed prospectively recorded data of men undergoing FT for localized low- or intermediate-risk PCa with US- (Ablatherm®-2009 to 2014) or mpMRI-US (Focal One®-from 2014) guided HIFU. Follow-up visits and data were collected using internationally validated questionnaires at 1, 2, 3, 6 and 12 months., Results: We included n=88 US-guided FT HIFU and n=52 mpMRI-US guided FT HIFU respectively. No major baseline differences were present except higher rates of Gleason 3+4 for the mpMRI-US group. No major differences were present in hospital stay (p=0.1), catheterization time (p=0.5) and complications (p=0.2) although these tended to be lower in the mpMRI-US group (6.8% versus 13.2% US FT group). At 3 months mpMRI-US guided HIFU had significantly lower urine leak (5.1% vs. 15.9%, p=0.04) and a lower drop in IIEF scores (2 vs. 4.2, p=0.07). Of those undergoing 12-months control biopsy in the mpMRI-US-guided HIFU group, 26% had residual cancer in the treated lobe., Conclusion: HIFU FT guided by MRI-US fusion may allow improved functional outcomes and fewer complications compared to US- guided HIFU FT alone. Further analysis is needed to confirm benefits of mpMRI implementation at a longer follow-up and on a larger cohort of patients., Competing Interests: None declared., (Copyright® by the International Brazilian Journal of Urology.)

Background: The diagnostic value and suitability of prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) have been inconsistent in previous studies. Thus, the aim of the present meta-analysis was performed to systematically evaluate the diagnostic value of PCA3 for PCa., Materials and Methods: A meta-analysis was performed to search relevant studies using online databases EMBASE, PubMed and Web of Science published until February 1st, 2019. Ultimately, 65 studies met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis with 8.139 cases and 14.116 controls. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios (LR+), negative likelihood ratios (LR-), and other measures of PCA3 were pooled and determined to evaluate the diagnostic rate of PCa by the random-effect model., Results: With PCA3, the pooled overall diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, LR+, LR-, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for predicting significant PCa were 0.68 (0.64-0.72), 0.72 (0.68-0.75), 2.41 (2.16-2.69), 0.44 (0.40-0.49), respectively. Besides, the summary diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and 95% CIs for PCA3 was 5.44 (4.53-6.53). In addition, the area under summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves and 95% CIs was 0.76 (0.72-0.79). The major design deficiencies of included studies were differential verification bias, and a lack of clear inclusion and exclusion criteria., Conclusions: The results of this meta-analysis suggested that PCA3 was a non-invasive method with the acceptable sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of PCa, to distinguish between patients and healthy individuals. To validate the potential applicability of PCA3 in the diagnosis of PCa, more rigorous studies were needed to confirm these conclusions., Competing Interests: None declared., (Copyright® by the International Brazilian Journal of Urology.)

Purpose: Propose an approach of prostate cancer (PCa) patients during COVID-19 pandemic., Material and Methods: We conducted a review of current literature related to surgical and clinical management of patients during COVID-19 crisis paying special attention to oncological ones and especially those suffering from PCa. Based on these publications and current urological guidelines, a manual to manage PCa patients is suggested., Results: Patients suffering from cancer are likely to develop serious complications from COVID-19 disease together with an increased risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Therefore, the management of oncological patients should be taken into special consideration and most of the treatments postponed. In case the procedure is not deferrable, it should be adapted to the current situation. While the shortest radiotherapy (RT) regimens should be applied, surgical procedures must undergo the following recommendations proposed by main surgical associations. PCa prognosis is generally favourable and therefore one can safely delay most of the biopsies up to 6 months without interfering with survival outcomes in the vast majority of cases. In the same way, most of the localised PCa patients are suitable for active surveillance (AS) or hormonal therapy until local definitive treatment could be reconsidered. In metastatic as well as castration resistant PCa stages, adding androgen receptor targeted agents (abiraterone, apalutamide, darolutamide or enzalutamide) to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) could be considered in high risk patients. On the contrary, chemotherapy, immunotherapy and Radium-223 must be avoided with regard to the consequence of hematologic toxicity and risk of COVID-19 infection because of immunodepression., Conclusions: Most of the biopsies should be delayed while AS is advised in those patients with low risk PCa. ADT allows us to defer definitive local treatment in many cases of intermediate and high risk PCa. In regard to metastatic and castration resistant PCa, combination therapies with abiraterone, apalutamide, darolutamide or enzalutamide could be considered. Chemotherapy, Radium-223 and immunotherapy are discouraged., Competing Interests: None declared., (Copyright® by the International Brazilian Journal of Urology.)

Purpose: To establish whether the citrate concentration in the seminal fluid ([CITRATE]) measured by means of high-resolution nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1HNMRS) is superior to the serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration in detecting of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in men with persistently elevated PSA., Materials and Methods: The group of patients consisted of 31 consecutively seen men with histological diagnosis of clinically localized csPCa. The control group consisted of 28 men under long-term follow-up (mean of 8.7 ± 3.0 years) for benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), with persistently elevated PSA (above 4 ng/mL) and several prostate biopsies negative for cancer (mean of 2.7 ± 1.3 biopsies per control). Samples of blood and seminal fluid (by masturbation) for measurement of PSA and citrate concentration, respectively, were collected from patients and controls. Citrate concentration in the seminal fluid ([CITRATE]) was determined by means of 1HNMRS. The capacities of PSA and [CITRATE] to predict csPCa were compared by means of univariate analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves., Results: Median [CITRATE] was significantly lower among patients with csPCa compared to controls (3.93 mM/l vs. 15.53 mM/l). There was no significant difference in mean PSA between patients and controls (9.42 ng/mL vs. 8.57 ng/mL). The accuracy of [CITRATE] for detecting csPCa was significantly superior compared to PSA (74.8% vs. 54.8%)., Conclusion: Measurement of [CITRATE] by means of 1HNMRS is superior to PSA for early detection of csPCa in men with elevated PSA., Competing Interests: None declared., (Copyright® by the International Brazilian Journal of Urology.)

ABSTRACT As patients with end-stage renal disease are receiving renal allografts at older ages, the number of male renal transplant recipients (RTRs) being diagnosed with prostate cancer (CaP) is increasing. Historically, the literature regarding the management of CaP in RTR's is limited to case reports and small case series. To date, there are no standardized guidelines for screening or management of CaP in these complex patients. To better understand the unique characteristics of CaP in the renal transplant population, we performed a literature review of PubMed, without date limitations, using a combination of search terms including prostate cancer, end stage renal disease, renal transplantation, prostate cancer screening, prostate specific antigen kinetics, immuno-suppression, prostatectomy, and radiation therapy. Of special note, teams facilitating the care of these complex patients must carefully and meticulously consider the altered anatomy for surgical and radiotherapeutic planning. Active surveillance, though gaining popularity in the general low risk prostate cancer population, needs further study in this group, as does the management of advance disease. This review provides a comprehensive and contemporary understanding of the incidence, screening measures, risk stratification, and treatment options for CaP in RTRs.

ABSTRACT Background Focal therapy (FT) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) treatment is raising interest. New technological mpMRI-US guided FT devices have never been compared with the previous generation of ultrasound-only guided devices. Materials and Methods We retrospectively analyzed prospectively recorded data of men undergoing FT for localized low- or intermediate-risk PCa with US- (Ablatherm®-2009 to 2014) or mpMRI-US (Focal One®-from 2014) guided HIFU. Follow-up visits and data were collected using internationally validated questionnaires at 1, 2, 3, 6 and 12 months. Results We included n=88 US-guided FT HIFU and n=52 mpMRI-US guided FT HIFU respectively. No major baseline differences were present except higher rates of Gleason 3+4 for the mpMRI-US group. No major differences were present in hospital stay (p=0.1), catheterization time (p=0.5) and complications (p=0.2) although these tended to be lower in the mpMRI-US group (6.8% versus 13.2% US FT group). At 3 months mpMRI-US guided HIFU had significantly lower urine leak (5.1% vs. 15.9%, p=0.04) and a lower drop in IIEF scores (2 vs. 4.2, p=0.07). Of those undergoing 12-months control biopsy in the mpMRI-US-guided HIFU group, 26% had residual cancer in the treated lobe. Conclusion HIFU FT guided by MRI-US fusion may allow improved functional outcomes and fewer complications compared to US- guided HIFU FT alone. Further analysis is needed to confirm benefits of mpMRI implementation at a longer follow-up and on a larger cohort of patients.