Focal vs extended ablation in localized prostate cancer with irreversible electroporation; a multi-center randomized controlled trial

\u3cp\u3eBackground: Current surgical and ablative treatment options for prostate cancer (PCa) may result in a high incidence of (temporary) incontinence, erectile dysfunction and/or bowel damage. These side effects are due to procedure related effects on adjacent structures including blood vessels, bowel, urethra and/or neurovascular bundle. Ablation with irreversible electroporation (IRE) has shown to be effective and safe in destroying PCa cells and also has the potential advantage of sparing surrounding tissue and vital structures, resulting in less impaired functional outcomes and maintaining men's quality of life. Methods/Design: In this randomized controlled trial (RCT) on IRE in localized PCa, 200 patients with organ-confined, unilateral (T1c-T2b) low- to intermediate-risk PCa (Gleason sum score 6 and 7) on transperineal template-mapping biopsies (TTMB) will be included. Patients will be randomized into focal or extended ablation of cancer foci with IRE. Oncological efficacy will be determined by multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound imaging if available, TTMP and Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) follow-up. Patients will be evaluated up to 5 years on functional outcomes and quality of life with the use of standardized questionnaires. Discussion: There is critical need of larger, standardized RCTs evaluating long-term oncological and functional outcomes before introducing IRE and other focal therapy modalities as an accepted and safe therapeutic option for PCa. This RCT will provide important short- and long-term data and elucidates the differences between focal or extended ablation of localized, unilateral low- to intermediate-risk PCa with IRE. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov database registration number NCT01835977. The Dutch Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects registration number NL50791.018.14.\u3c/p\u3

The prostate cancer detection rates of CEUS-targeted versus MRI-targeted versus systematic TRUS-guided biopsies in biopsy-naïve men:a prospective, comparative clinical trial using the same patients

\u3cp\u3eBACKGROUND: The current standard for Prostate Cancer (PCa) detection in biopsy-naïve men consists of 10-12 systematic biopsies under ultrasound guidance. This approach leads to underdiagnosis and undergrading of significant PCa while insignificant PCa may be overdiagnosed. The recent developments in MRI and Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) imaging have sparked an increasing interest in PCa imaging with the ultimate goal of replacing these blind systematic biopsies with reliable imaging-based targeted biopsies.\u3c/p\u3e\u3cp\u3eMETHODS/DESIGN: In this trial, we evaluate and compare the PCa detection rates of multiparametric (mp)MRI-targeted biopsies, CEUS-targeted biopsies and systematic biopsies under ultrasound guidance in the same patients. After informed consent, 299 biopsy-naïve men will undergo mpMRI scanning and CEUS imaging 1 week prior to the prostate biopsy procedure. During the biopsy procedure, a systematic transrectal 12-core biopsy will be performed by one operator blinded for the imaging results and targeted biopsy procedure. Subsequently a maximum of 4 CEUS-targeted biopsies and/or 4 mpMRI-targeted biopsies of predefined locations determined by an expert CEUS reader using quantification techniques and an expert radiologist, respectively, will be taken by a second operator using an MRI-US fusion device. The primary outcome is the detection rate of PCa (all grades) and clinically significant PCa (defined as Gleason score ≥7) compared between the three biopsy protocols.\u3c/p\u3e\u3cp\u3eDISCUSSION: This trial compares the detection rate of (clinically significant) PCa, between both traditional systematic biopsies and targeted biopsies based on predefined regions of interest identified by two promising imaging technologies. It follows published recommendations on study design for the evaluation of imaging guided prostate biopsy techniques, minimizing bias and allowing data pooling. It is the first trial to combine mpMRI imaging and advanced CEUS imaging with quantification.\u3c/p\u3e\u3cp\u3eTRIAL REGISTRATION: The Dutch Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects registration number NL52851.018.15, registered on 3 Nov 2015. Clinicaltrials.gov database registration number NCT02831920 , retrospectively registered on 5 July 2016.\u3c/p\u3

Irreversible electroporation for the treatment of localized prostate cancer:a summary of imaging findings and treatment feedback

\u3cp\u3ePURPOSE: Imaging plays a crucial role in ablative therapies for prostate cancer (PCa). Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a new treatment modality used for focal treatment of PCa. We aimed to demonstrate what imaging modalities can be used by descriptively reporting contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS), multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), and grey-scale transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) results. Furthermore, we aimed to correlate quantitatively the ablation zone seen on mpMRI and CEUS with treatment planning to provide therapy feedback.\u3c/p\u3e\u3cp\u3eMETHODS: Imaging data was obtained from two prospective multicenter trials on IRE for localized low- to intermediate-risk PCa. The ablation zone volume (AZV) seen on mpMRI and CEUS was 3D reconstructed to correlate with the planned AZV.\u3c/p\u3e\u3cp\u3eRESULTS: Descriptive examples are provided using mpMRI, TRUS, and CEUS for treatment planning and follow-up after IRE. The mean AZV on T2-weighted imaging 4 weeks following IRE was 12.9 cm3 (standard deviation [SD]=7.0), 5.3 times larger than the planned AZV. Linear regression showed a positive correlation (r=0.76, P = 0.002). For CEUS the mean AZV was 20.7 cm3 (SD=8.7), 8.5 times larger than the planned AZV with a strong positive correlation (r=0.93, P = 0.001). Prostate volume is reduced over time (mean= -27.5%, SD=11.9%) due to ablation zone fibrosis and deformation, illustrated by 3D reconstruction.\u3c/p\u3e\u3cp\u3eCONCLUSION: The role of imaging in conjunction with IRE is of crucial importance to guide clinicians throughout the treatment protocol. CEUS and mpMRI may provide essential treatment feedback by visualizing the ablation zone dimensions and volume.\u3c/p\u3