Advertisement

Early Effects of High-intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) Treatment for Prostate Cancer on Fecal Continence and Anorectal Physiology

Published:October 16, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.10.009

      Objective

      To evaluate high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) effects on anorectal physiology and fecal continence or constipation, and on quality of life (QoL).

      Methods

      We prospectively evaluated 26 patients with localized prostate cancer who underwent HIFU. The Rome III criteria for functional constipation, the Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence Score, and the Fecal Incontinence QoL Score questionnaires were answered before and after treatment. Anorectal manometry was used to evaluate resting and squeezing pressures, sustained contraction, paradoxical puborectalis contraction, rectal sensation, and rectal capacity.

      Results

      Thirteen patients underwent hemiablation and 13 underwent whole-gland ablation. There was no difference between groups regarding the Rome III criteria for functional constipation results. The Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence Score results showed that 3 (11.5%) of patients had mild fecal incontinence before HIFU and 5 (19.2%) had it afterward (P = .625). No patients reported poor QoL due to fecal incontinence in the Fecal Incontinence QoL Score. Anorectal manometry demonstrated no decrease in resting pressure after treatment (P = .299), while squeezing pressure significantly increased from 151.87 to 167.91 mm Hg (P = .034). The number of patients with normal sustained contraction remained the same (20 [77%]). Paradoxical puborectalis contraction was seen in 12 (46%) of the patients before the procedure and in 13 (50%) after (P = .713). Improvement in sensory parameters was not significant: first sense changed from 73.46 to 49.71 mL (P = .542) and first urge from 98.27 to 82.88 mL (P = .106). Rectal capacity had a nonsignificant decrease from 166.15 to 141.15mL (P = .073).

      Conclusion

      HIFU did not cause significant changes in anorectal physiology. Fecal incontinence or constipation after HIFU was not observed via validated questionnaires.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Siegel RL
        • Miller KD
        • Jemal A
        Cancer statistics, 2018.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2018; 68: 7-30
        • Negoita S
        • Feuer EJ
        • Mariotto A
        • et al.
        Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, part II: recent changes in prostate cancer trends and disease characteristics.
        Cancer. 2018; 124: 2801-2814
        • Mottet N
        • Bellmunt J
        • Bolla M
        • et al.
        EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent.
        Eur Urol. 2017; 71: 618-629
        • Sanda MG
        • Dunn RL
        • Michalski J
        • et al.
        Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors.
        N Engl J Med. 2008; 358: 1250-1261
        • Neal DE
        • Metcalfe C
        • Donovan JL
        • et al.
        Ten-year mortality, disease progression, and treatment-related side effects in men with localised prostate cancer from the ProtecT Randomised Controlled Trial according to treatment received.
        Eur Urol. 2020; 77: 320-330
        • Thuroff S
        • Chaussy C.
        Evolution and outcomes of 3 MHz high intensity focused ultrasound therapy for localized prostate cancer during 15 years.
        J Urol. 2013; 190: 702-710
        • Bakavicius A
        • Sanchez-Salas R
        • Muttin F
        • et al.
        Comprehensive evaluation of focal therapy complications in prostate cancer: A Standardized Methodology.
        J Endourol. 2019; 33: 509-515
        • Chaussy CG
        • Thüroff S.
        High-intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of prostate cancer: a review.
        J Endourol. 2017; 31: S30-SS7
        • Crouzet S
        • Chapelon JY
        • Rouviere O
        • et al.
        Whole-gland ablation of localized prostate cancer with high-intensity focused ultrasound: oncologic outcomes and morbidity in 1002 patients.
        Eur Urol. 2014; 65: 907-914
        • Rockwood TH
        • Church JM
        • Fleshman JW
        • et al.
        Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale: quality of life instrument for patients with fecal incontinence.
        Dis Colon Rectum. 2000; 43 (discussion -7): 9-16
        • Yusuf SA
        • Jorge JM
        • Habr-Gama A
        • Kiss DR
        • Gama Rodrigues J
        [Evaluation of quality of life in anal incontinence: validation of the questionnaire FIQL (Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life)].
        Arq Gastroenterol. 2004; 41: 202-208
        • Krol R
        • Smeenk RJ
        • van Lin EN
        • Hopman WP
        Impact of late anorectal dysfunction on quality of life after pelvic radiotherapy.
        Int J Colorectal Dis. 2013; 28: 519-526
        • Jorge JM
        • Wexner SD
        Anorectal manometry: techniques and clinical applications.
        South Med J. 1993; 86: 924-931
        • Stabile A
        • Orczyk C
        • Hosking-Jervis F
        • et al.
        Medium-term oncological outcomes in a large cohort of men treated with either focal or hemi-ablation using high-intensity focused ultrasonography for primary localized prostate cancer.
        BJU Int. 2019; 124: 431-440
        • Guillaumier S
        • Peters M
        • Arya M
        • et al.
        A multicentre study of 5-year outcomes following focal therapy in treating clinically significant nonmetastatic prostate cancer.
        Eur Urol. 2018; 74: 422-429
        • Hatiboglu G
        • Popeneciu IV
        • Deppert M
        • et al.
        Quality of life and functional outcome after infravesical desobstruction and HIFU treatment for localized prostate cancer.
        BMC Urol. 2017; 17: 5
        • Crouzet S
        • Blana A
        • Murat FJ
        • et al.
        Salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for locally recurrent prostate cancer after failed radiation therapy: multi-institutional analysis of 418 patients.
        BJU Int. 2017; 119: 896-904
        • Harris MJ
        Radical perineal prostatectomy: cost efficient, outcome effective, minimally invasive prostate cancer management.
        Eur Urol. 2003; 44 (discussion 8): 303-308
        • Giberti C
        • Chiono L
        • Gallo F
        • Schenone M
        • Gastaldi E
        Radical retropubic prostatectomy versus brachytherapy for low-risk prostatic cancer: a prospective study.
        World J Urol. 2009; 27: 607-612
        • Donovan JL
        • Hamdy FC
        • Lane JA
        • et al.
        Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2016; 375: 1425-1437
        • Krol R
        • McColl GM
        • Hopman WPM
        • Smeenk RJ
        Anal and rectal function after intensity-modulated prostate radiotherapy with endorectal balloon.
        Radiother Oncol. 2018; 128: 364-368