Focal HIFU therapy for anterior compared to posterior prostate cancer lesions.

OBJECTIVE To compare cancer control in anterior compared to posterior prostate cancer lesions treated with a focal HIFU therapy approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS In a prospectively maintained national database, 598 patients underwent focal HIFU (Sonablate®500) (March/2007-November/2016). Follow-up occurred with 3-monthly clinic visits and PSA testing in the first year with PSA, every 6-12 months with mpMRI with biopsy for MRI-suspicion of recurrence. Treatment failure was any secondary treatment (ADT/chemotherapy, cryotherapy, EBRT, RRP, or re-HIFU), tumour recurrence with Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 on prostate biopsy without further treatment or metastases/prostate cancer-related mortality. Cases with anterior cancer were compared to those with posterior disease. RESULTS 267 patients were analysed following eligibility criteria. 45 had an anterior focal-HIFU and 222 had a posterior focal-HIFU. Median age was 64 years and 66 years, respectively, with similar PSA level of 7.5 ng/ml and 6.92 ng/ml. 84% and 82%, respectively, had Gleason 3 + 4, 16% in both groups had Gleason 4 + 3, 0% and 2% had Gleason 4 + 4. Prostate volume was similar (33 ml vs. 36 ml, p = 0.315); median number of positive cores in biopsies was different in anterior and posterior tumours (7 vs. 5, p = 0.009), while medium cancer core length, and maximal cancer percentage of core were comparable. 17/45 (37.8%) anterior focal-HIFU patients compared to 45/222 (20.3%) posterior focal-HIFU patients required further treatment (p = 0.019). CONCLUSION Treating anterior prostate cancer lesions with focal HIFU may be less effective compared to posterior tumours

Metastatic prostate cancer men’s attitudes towards treatment of the local tumour and metastasis evaluative research (IP5-MATTER) : protocol for a prospective, multicentre discrete choice experiment study

Acknowledgements We would like to thank all the participants, study PIs, trial clinicians, research nurses, Imperial Clinical Trial Unit staff and other site staff who have been responsible for setting up, recruiting participants and collecting the data for the IP5-MATTER trial. We are also grateful for the ongoing support of the Trial Management Group and our IP5-MATTER patient representatives. Finally, we would like to thank our trial funder the Wellcome Trust and University College London Hospitals (UCLH) Charity. Funding MJC’s research is support by University College London Hospitals (UCLH) Charity and the Wellcome Trust. Mesfin Genie and Verity Watson are based at the Health Economics Research Unit (HERU), University of Aberdeen. HERU is funded by the Chief Scientists Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate. KTJ acknowledges research grant from the UK National Institute of Health Research Clinical Research Network Eastern and has received educational grants from Bayer UK, Janssen Oncology, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda. HUA’s research is supported by core funding from the United Kingdom’s National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Imperial Biomedical Research Centre.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

An exploratory study of dose escalation versus standard focal High Intensity Focused Ultrasound for treating non-metastatic prostate cancer.

Objective To compare cancer control rates of standard compared to dose escalation focal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) of prostate cancer. Materials and methods A prospectively maintained HIFU (Sonablate® 500) database identified 598 patients were identified who underwent focal HIFU (Sonablate® 500) (March/2007-November/2016). Follow-up occurred with 3-monthly clinic visits and PSA testing in the first year. Thereafter, PSA was measured 6-monthly. mpMRI with biopsy was used for MRI-suspicion of recurrence. Treatments were delivered in a quadrant or hemiablation fashion depending on the gland volume as well as tumour volume and location. Prior to mid-2015, standard focal-HIFU was used (two HIFU blocks); after this date some urologists conducted dose escalation focal-HIFU (3 overlapping HIFU blocks). Propensity matching was used to ensure two matched groups leading to 162 cases for this analysis. Treatment failure was defined by any secondary treatment (systemic therapy, cryotherapy, radiotherapy, prostatectomy, or further HIFU), metastasis from prostate cancer without further treatment, tumour recurrence with Gleason score >/=7 (>/=3+4) on prostate biopsy without further treatment, or prostate cancer-related mortality. Complications and side-effects were also compared. Results Median age was 64.5 years (IQR 60-73.5) in the standard focal-HIFU group and 64.5 years (IQR 60-69) in the dose-escalation group. Median prostate volume was 37ml (IQR 17-103) in standard group and 47.5ml (IQR 19-121) in the dose-escalation group. As tumour volume on mpMRI and Gleason score were major matching criteria these were identical with 0.43ml (IQR 0.05-2.5) and Gleason 3+3=6 in 1/32 (3%), 3+4=7 in 27/32 (84%), and 4+3=7 in 4/32 (13%). Recurrence in treated areas were found in 10/32 (31%) when standard treatment zones were applied, and in 6/32 (19%) of dose-escalation focal-HIFU (p=0.007). Conclusion This exploratory study shows that dose escalation focal-HIFU may achieve higher rates of disease control compared to standard focal-HIFU. Further prospective comparative studies are needed

Conventional radical versus focal treatment for localised prostate cancer: a propensity score weighted comparison of 6-year tumour control

Background: For localised prostate cancer, focal therapy offers an organ-sparing alternative to radical treatments (radiotherapy or prostatectomy). Currently, there is no randomised comparative effectiveness data evaluating cancer control of both strategies. Methods: Following the eligibility criteria PSA &lt; 20 ng/mL, Gleason score ≤ 7 and T-stage ≤ T2c, we included 830 radical (440 radiotherapy, 390 prostatectomy) and 530 focal therapy (cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound or high-dose-rate brachytherapy) patients treated between 2005 and 2018 from multicentre registries in the Netherlands and the UK. A propensity score weighted (PSW) analysis was performed to compare failure-free survival (FFS), with failure defined as salvage treatment, metastatic disease, systemic treatment (androgen deprivation therapy or chemotherapy), or progression to watchful waiting. The secondary outcome was overall survival (OS). Median (IQR) follow-up in each cohort was 55 (28–83) and 62 (42–83) months, respectively. Results: At baseline, radical patients had higher PSA (10.3 versus 7.9) and higher-grade disease (31% ISUP 3 versus 11%) compared to focal patients. After PSW, all covariates were balanced (SMD &lt; 0.1). 6-year weighted FFS was higher after radical therapy (80.3%, 95% CI 73.9–87.3) than after focal therapy (72.8%, 95% CI 66.8–79.8) although not statistically significant (p = 0.1). 6-year weighted OS was significantly lower after radical therapy (93.4%, 95% CI 90.1–95.2 versus 97.5%, 95% CI 94–99.9; p = 0.02). When compared in a three-way analysis, focal and LRP patients had a higher risk of treatment failure than EBRT patients (p &lt; 0.001), but EBRT patients had a higher risk of mortality than focal patients (p = 0.008). Conclusions: Within the limitations of a cohort-based analysis in which residual confounders are likely to exist, we found no clinically relevant difference in cancer control conferred by focal therapy compared to radical therapy at 6 years.</p

Cancer control outcomes following focal therapy using high-intensity focused ultrasound in 1379 men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer: a multi-institute 15-year experience

Background: local therapy aims to treat areas of cancer to confer oncological control whilst reducing treatment-related functional detriment.Objective: to report oncological outcomes and adverse events following focal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for treating nonmetastatic prostate cancer.Design, setting, participants: an analysis of 1379 patients with ≥6 mo of follow-up prospectively recorded in the HIFU Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment (HEAT) registry from 13 UK centres (2005-2020) was conducted. Five or more years of follow-up was available for 325 (24%) patients. Focal HIFU therapy used a transrectal ultrasound-guided device (Sonablate; Sonacare Inc., Charlotte, NC, USA).Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: failure-free survival (FFS) was primarily defined as avoidance of no evidence of disease to require salvage whole-gland or systemic treatment, or metastases or prostate cancer-specific mortality. Differences in FFS between D'Amico risk groups were determined using a log-rank analysis. Adverse events were reported using Clavien-Dindo classification.Results and limitations: the median (interquartile range) age was 66 (60-71) yr and prostate-specific antigen was 6.9 (4.9-9.4) ng/ml with D'Amico intermediate risk in 65% (896/1379) and high risk in 28% (386/1379). The overall median follow-up was 32 (17-58) mo; for those with ≥5 yr of follow-up, it was 82 (72-94). A total of 252 patients had repeat focal treatment due to residual or recurrent cancer; overall 92 patients required salvage whole-gland treatment. Kaplan-Meier 7-yr FFS was 69% (64-74%). Seven-year FFS in intermediate- and high-risk cancers was 68% (95% confidence interval [CI] 62-75%) and 65% (95% CI 56-74%; p = 0.3). Clavien-Dindo &gt;2 adverse events occurred in 0.5% (7/1379). The median 10-yr follow-up is lacking.Conclusions: focal HIFU in carefully selected patients with clinically significant prostate cancer, with six and three of ten patients having, respectively, intermediate- and high-risk cancer, has good cancer control in the medium term.PATIENT SUMMARY: Focal high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment to areas of prostate with cancer can provide an alternative to treating the whole prostate. This treatment modality has good medium-term cancer control over 7 yr, although 10-yr data are not yet available.</p

Focal therapy compared to radical prostatectomy for non-metastatic prostate cancer: a propensity score-matched study

Focal therapy (FT) ablates areas of prostate cancer rather than treating the whole gland. We compared oncological outcomes of FT to radical prostatectomy (RP). Using prospective multicentre databases of 761 FT and 572 RP cases (November/2005-September/2018), patients with PSA  335 radical prostatectomy and 501 focal therapy patients were eligible for matching. For focal therapy, 420 had HIFU and 81 cryotherapy. Cryotherapy was used predominantly for anterior cancer. After matching, 246 RP and 246 FT cases were identified. For radical prostatectomy, mean (SD) age was 63.4 (5.6) years, median (IQR) PSA 7.9 g/ml (6-10) and median (IQR) follow-up 64 (30-89) months. For focal therapy, these were 63.3 (6.9) years, 7.9 ng/ml (5.5-10.6) and 49 [34-67] months, respectively. At 3, 5 and 8 years, FFS (95%CI) was 86% (81-91%), 82% (77-88%) and 79% (73-86%) for radical prostatectomy compared to 91% (87-95%), 86% (81-92%) and 83% (76-90%) following focal therapy (p = 0.12). In patients with non-metastatic low- intermediate prostate cancer, oncological outcomes over 8 years were similar between focal therapy and radical prostatectomy

Focal therapy compared to radical prostatectomy for non-metastatic prostate cancer: a propensity score-matched study.

Focal therapy (FT) ablates areas of prostate cancer rather than treating the whole gland. We compared oncological outcomes of FT to radical prostatectomy (RP). Using prospective multicentre databases of 761 FT and 572 RP cases (November/2005-September/2018), patients with PSA  335 radical prostatectomy and 501 focal therapy patients were eligible for matching. For focal therapy, 420 had HIFU and 81 cryotherapy. Cryotherapy was used predominantly for anterior cancer. After matching, 246 RP and 246 FT cases were identified. For radical prostatectomy, mean (SD) age was 63.4 (5.6) years, median (IQR) PSA 7.9 g/ml (6-10) and median (IQR) follow-up 64 (30-89) months. For focal therapy, these were 63.3 (6.9) years, 7.9 ng/ml (5.5-10.6) and 49 [34-67] months, respectively. At 3, 5 and 8 years, FFS (95%CI) was 86% (81-91%), 82% (77-88%) and 79% (73-86%) for radical prostatectomy compared to 91% (87-95%), 86% (81-92%) and 83% (76-90%) following focal therapy (p = 0.12). In patients with non-metastatic low- intermediate prostate cancer, oncological outcomes over 8 years were similar between focal therapy and radical prostatectomy