Advertisement

Partial Gland Ablation of Prostate Cancer: Effects of Repeat Treatment

      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 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

        • Onik G
        • Narayan P
        • Vaughan D
        • Dineen M
        • Brunelle R.
        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
        • Hopstaken JS
        • Bomers JGR
        • Sedelaar MJP
        • Valerio M
        • Fütterer JJ
        • Rovers MM.
        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
        • Lebastchi AH
        • George AK
        • Polascik TJ
        • et al.
        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
        • Stabile A
        • Sanchez-Salas R
        • Tourinho-Barbosa R
        • et al.
        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
        • 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: 431-440https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14710
        • Barret E
        • Harvey-Bryan KA
        • Sanchez-Salas R
        • Rozet F
        • Galiano M
        • Cathelineau X.
        How to diagnose and treat focal therapy failure and recurrence?.
        Curr Opin Urol. 2014; 24: 241-246https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000052
        • Aminsharifi A
        • Polascik TJ.
        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
        • Lovegrove CE
        • Peters M
        • Guillaumier S
        • et al.
        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
        • Tan WP
        • ElShafei A
        • Aminsharifi A
        • Khalifa AO
        • Polascik TJ.
        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
        • Natarajan S
        • Marks LS
        • Margolis DJA
        • et al.
        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
        • Sonn GA
        • Chang E
        • Natarajan S
        • et al.
        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
        • Nassiri N
        • Chang E
        • Lieu P
        • et al.
        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
        • Jarow JP
        • Ahmed HU
        • Choyke PL
        • Taneja SS
        • Scardino PT.
        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
        • Chuang R
        • Kinnaird A
        • Kwan L
        • et al.
        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
        • Jones TA
        • Chin J
        • Mcleod D
        • Barkin J
        • Pantuck A
        • Marks LS.
        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
        • Borges RC
        • Tourinho-Barbosa RR
        • Glina S
        • et al.
        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
        • Mustafa M
        • Delacroix S
        • Ward JF
        • Pisters L.
        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
        • Berge V
        • Dickinson L
        • McCartan N
        • et al.
        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
        • Tay KJ
        • Amin MB
        • Ghai S
        • et al.
        Surveillance after prostate focal therapy.
        World J Urol. 2019; 37: 397-407https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2363-y
        • Lovegrove CE
        • Peters M
        • Guillaumier S
        • et al.
        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
        • Shah TT
        • Reddy D
        • Peters M
        • et al.
        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
        • Natarajan S
        • Jones TA
        • Priester AM
        • et al.
        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
        • Guillaumier S
        • Peters M
        • Arya M
        • et al.
        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
        • Tay KJ
        • Polascik TJ
        • Elshafei A
        • Tsivian E
        • Jones JS.
        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
        • Epstein JI
        • Zelefsky MJ
        • Sjoberg DD
        • et al.
        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
      1. Priester AM. Why does Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer Fail? Manuscr Press, Los Angeles, 2022.