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 mu g ml(-1) at 12 months, with 57.8% achieving <= 0.2 mu g 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 mu g 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 9 June 2009 (C) 2009 Cancer Research U

The European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) survey of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP)

Objective To evaluate surgeons adherence to current clinical practice, with the available evidence, for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and offer a baseline assessment to measure the impact of the Pasadena recommendations. Recently, the European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) supported the Pasadena Consensus Conference on best practices in RARP. Subjects and Methods This survey was performed in January 2012. A specific questionnaire was sent, by e-mail, to 145 robotic surgeons who were included in the mailing-list of ERUS members and working in different urological institutions. Participating surgeons were invited to answer a multiple-choice questionnaire including 24-items evaluating the main RARP surgical steps. Results In all, 116 (79.4%) invited surgeons answered the questionnaire and accepted to participate to the ERUS survey. In all, 47 (40.5%) surgeons performed > 100 RARPs; 41 (35.3%) between 50 and 100, and 28 (24.1%) < 50 yearly. The transperitoneal, antegrade technique was the preferred approach. Minimising bladder neck dissection and the use of athermal dissection of the neurovascular bundles (NVBs) were also popular. There was more heterogeneity in the use of energy for seminal vesicle dissection, the preservation of the tips of the seminal vesicle and the choice between intra- and interfascial planes during the antero-lateral dissection of the NVBs. There was also large variability in the posterior and/or anterior reconstruction steps. Conclusions The present study is the first international survey evaluating surgeon preferences during RARP. Considering that the results were collected before the publication of the Pasadena recommendations, the data might be considered an important baseline evaluation to test the dissemination and effects of the Pasadena recommendations in subsequent years

The European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) survey of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate surgeons adherence to current clinical practice, with the available evidence, for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and offer a baseline assessment to measure the impact of the Pasadena recommendations. Recently, the European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) supported the Pasadena Consensus Conference on best practices in RARP. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This survey was performed in January 2012. A specific questionnaire was sent, by e-mail, to 145 robotic surgeons who were included in the mailing-list of ERUS members and working in different urological institutions. Participating surgeons were invited to answer a multiple-choice questionnaire including 24-items evaluating the main RARP surgical steps. RESULTS: In all, 116 (79.4%) invited surgeons answered the questionnaire and accepted to participate to the ERUS survey. In all, 47 (40.5%) surgeons performed &gt;100 RARPs; 41 (35.3%) between 50 and 100, and 28 (24.1%) &lt;50 yearly. The transperitoneal, antegrade technique was the preferred approach. Minimising bladder neck dissection and the use of athermal dissection of the neurovascular bundles (NVBs) were also popular. There was more heterogeneity in the use of energy for seminal vesicle dissection, the preservation of the tips of the seminal vesicle and the choice between intra- and interfascial planes during the antero-lateral dissection of the NVBs. There was also large variability in the posterior and/or anterior reconstruction steps. CONCLUSIONS: The present study is the first international survey evaluating surgeon preferences during RARP. Considering that the results were collected before the publication of the Pasadena recommendations, the data might be considered an important baseline evaluation to test the dissemination and effects of the Pasadena recommendations in subsequent years