Objective
To evaluate the near-term clinical and pathological effects of repeat partial gland
ablation (PGA) in men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa).
Materials and methods
One hundred seventy men with focal lesions of PCa (all GG2 or GG3) underwent PGA with
high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) or cryotherapy (CRYO) in prospective trials.
Residual PCa in or near the ablation zone was found in 37 men after a first PGA; 30
went on to receive a second PGA and were the subjects of study. At 3 timepoints, baseline
and 6 months after first and second ablations, quality-of-life (QOL) questionnaires
(IIEF, IPSS) and MRI-guided biopsies (MRGB) were performed. Biopsies were targeted
and systematic at baseline and in follow-up, comprehensively about the ablation zone.
Results
All 30 patients completed QOL questionnaires and 26 had MRGB at the 3 timepoints.
Mean QOL scores were not significantly different from the baseline after the first
or second PGA. No operative complications were encountered; and “decisional regret”
was reported in only 2/29 men after the repeat ablation. A decrease in semen volume
was reported by 25% of patients. Repeat ablation was successful (absence of csPCa
on MRGB) in 14/26 (53%) of men. PSA levels decreased and MRI lesions resolved after
ablations, but neither was a reliable predictor of biopsy outcomes.
Conclusion
When initial PGA fails, repeat PGA is a reasonable consideration, because in near-term
follow-up, secondary procedures appear to be safe, causing only minimal detriment
to urinary and sexual function, with csPCa becoming undetectable by MRGB in approximately
half the patients.
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 accessOne-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 UrologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Focal “nerve-sparing” cryosurgery for treatment of primary prostate cancer: a new approach to preserving potency.Urology. 2002; 60: 109-114https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(02)01643-6
- An updated systematic review on focal therapy in localized prostate cancer: what has changed over the past 5 years?.Eur Urol. 2022; 81: 5-33https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EURURO.2021.08.005
- Standardized nomenclature and surveillance methodologies after focal therapy and partial gland ablation for localized prostate cancer: an International Multidisciplinary Consensus.Eur Urol. 2020; 78: 371-378https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EURURO.2020.05.018
- Association between lesion location and oncologic outcomes after focal therapy for localized prostate cancer using either high intensity focused ultrasound or cryotherapy.J Urol. 2021; 206: 638-645https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001787
- 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: 431-440https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14710
- How to diagnose and treat focal therapy failure and recurrence?.Curr Opin Urol. 2014; 24: 241-246https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000052
- Diagnosis and management of local recurrence after prostate focal therapy: challenges and solutions.Eur Urol Oncol. 2019; 2https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EUO.2019.07.008
- Evaluation of functional outcomes after a second focal high-intensity focused ultrasonography (HIFU) procedure in men with primary localized, non-metastatic prostate cancer: results from the HIFU Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment (HEAT) registry.BJU Int. 2020; 125: 853-860https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15004
- Salvage focal cryotherapy offers similar short-term oncologic control and improved urinary function compared with salvage whole gland cryotherapy for radiation-resistant or recurrent prostate cancer.Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2020; 18: e260-e265https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CLGC.2019.11.009
- Clinical application of a 3D ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy system.Urol Oncol. 2011; 29: 334-342https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.02.014
- Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen.Eur Urol. 2014; 65: 809-815https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.025
- Focal therapy eligibility determined by magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy.J Urol. 2018; 199: 453-458https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.08.085
- Partial gland ablation for prostate cancer: Report of a food and drug administration, American urological association, and society of urologic oncology public workshop.Urology. 2016; 88: 8-13https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.11.018
- Hemigland cryoablation of clinically significant prostate cancer: intermediate-term followup via magnetic resonance imaging guided biopsy.J Urol. 2020; 204: 941-949https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001133
- High intensity focused ultrasound for radiorecurrent prostate cancer: A North American Clinical Trial.J Urol. 2018; 199: 133-139https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JURO.2017.06.078
- Impact of focal versus whole gland ablation for prostate cancer on sexual function and urinary continence.J Urol. 2021; 205: 129-136https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001327
- The feasibility and safety of repeat cryosurgical ablation of localized prostate cancer.World J Surg Oncol. 2015; 13: 1-6https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-015-0753-9
- Morbidity associated with primary high intensity focused ultrasound and redo high intensity focused ultrasound for localized prostate cancer.J Urol. 2014; 191: 1764-1769https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.12.036
- Surveillance after prostate focal therapy.World J Urol. 2019; 37: 397-407https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2363-y
- Evaluation of functional outcomes after a second focal high-intensity focused ultrasonography (HIFU) procedure in men with primary localized, non-metastatic prostate cancer: results from the HIFU Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment (HEAT) registry.BJU Int. 2020; 125: 853-860https://doi.org/10.1111/BJU.15004
- Focal therapy compared to radical prostatectomy for non-metastatic prostate cancer: a propensity score-matched study.Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021; 24: 567-574https://doi.org/10.1038/S41391-020-00315-Y
- Focal laser ablation of prostate cancer: feasibility of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion for guidance.J Urol. 2017; 198: 839-847https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JURO.2017.04.017
- A multicentre study of 5-year outcomes following focal tgherapy in treating clinically significant nonmetastatic prostate cancer.Eur Urol. 2018; 74: 422-429https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EURURO.2018.06.006
- Propensity score-matched comparison of partial to whole-gland cryotherapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer: an analysis of the cryo on-line data registry data.J Endourol. 2017; 31: 564-571https://doi.org/10.1089/END.2016.0830
- A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the gleason score.Eur Urol. 2016; 69: 428-435https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EURURO.2015.06.046
Priester AM. Why does Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer Fail? Manuscr Press, Los Angeles, 2022.
Article info
Publication history
Published online: July 27, 2022
Accepted:
July 17,
2022
Received:
March 16,
2022
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
