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

Huber, Philipp M.; Afzal, Naveed; Arya, Manit; Boxler, Silvan; Dudderidge, Tim; Emberton, Mark; Guillaumier, Stephanie; Hindley, Richard G; Hosking-Jervis, Feargus; Leemann, Lucas; Lewi, Henry; McCartan, Neil; Moore, Caroline M; Nigam, Raj; Odgen, Chris; Persad, Raj; Virdi, Jaspal; Winkler, Mathias; Ahmed, Hashim U (2021). Focal HIFU therapy for anterior compared to posterior prostate cancer lesions. World journal of urology, 39(4), pp. 1115-1119. Springer-Verlag 10.1007/s00345-020-03297-7

Preview

Text Bo_Focal HIFU therapy for anterior compared to posterior prostate cancer lesions_030820.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY). Download (519kB) | Preview

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.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

117 since deposited on 04 Aug 2020
27 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item