High-intensity-focused ultrasound in the treatment of primary prostate cancer: the first UK series.

Background:The use of minimally invasive ablative therapies in localised prostate cancer offer potential for a middle ground between active surveillance and radical therapy.Methods:An analysis of men with organ-confined prostate cancer treated with transrectal whole-gland HIFU (Sonablate 500) between 1 February 2005 and 15 May 2007 was carried out in two centres. Outcome data (side-effects using validated patient questionnaires, biochemical, histology) were evaluated.Results:A total of 172 men were treated under general anaesthetic as day-case procedures with 78% discharged a mean 5 h after treatment. Mean follow-up was 346 days (range 135–759 days). Urethral stricture was significantly lower in those with suprapubic catheter compared with urethral catheters (19.4 vs 40.4%, P=0.005). Antibiotics were given to 23.8% of patients for presumed urinary tract infection and the rate of epididymitis was 7.6%. Potency was maintained in 70% by 12 months, whereas mild stress urinary incontinence (no pads) was reported in 7.0% (12 out of 172) with a further 0.6% (1 out of 172) requiring pads. There was no rectal toxicity and no recto-urethral fistulae. In all, 78.3% achieved a PSA nadir 0.5 μg ml⁻¹ at 12 months, with 57.8% achieving 0.2 μg ml⁻¹. Then, 8 out of 13 were retreated with HIFU, one had salvage external beam radiotherapy and four chose active surveillance for small-volume low-risk disease. Overall, there was no evidence of disease (PSA <0.5 μg ml⁻¹ or negative biopsy if nadir not achieved) after one HIFU session in 92.4% (159 out of 172) of patients.Conclusion:HIFU is a minimally invasive, day-case ablative technique that can achieve good biochemical outcomes in the short term with minimal urinary incontinence and acceptable levels of erectile dysfunction. Long-term outcome needs further evaluation and the inception of an international registry for cases treated using HIFU will significantly aid this health technology assessment.British Journal of Cancer (2009) 101, 19–26; doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605116 www.bjcancer.com Published online online 9 June 2009 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]