Fourteen-year oncological and functional outcomes of high-intensity focused ultrasound in localized prostate cancer.

UNLABELLED: WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is an alternative treatment option for localized prostate cancer (PCa), which is applied for over 15 years. There are conflicting recommendations for HIFU among urological societies, which can be explained by the lack of prospective controlled studies, reports on preselected patient populations and limited follow-up providing little information on overall and cancer-specific survival. We report on a large, unselected consecutive patient series of patients who have undergone primary HIFU for clinically localized PCa with the longest follow-up in current literature. Our results improve the understanding of the oncological efficacy, morbidity and side effects of primary HIFU. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety, functional and oncological long-term outcomes of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) as a primary treatment option for localized prostate cancer (PCa). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective single-centre study on 538 consecutive patients who underwent primary HIFU for clinically localized PCa between November 1997 and September 2009. Factors assessed were: biochemical disease-free survival (BDFS) according to Phoenix criteria (prostate-specific antigen nadir + 2 ng/mL); metastatic-free, overall and PCa-specific survival; salvage treatment; side effects; potency; and continence status. RESULTS: The mean (sd; range) follow-up was 8.1 (2.9; 2.1-14.0) years. The actuarial BDFS rates at 5 and 10 years were 81 and 61%, respectively. The 5-year BDFS rates for low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients were 88, 83 and 48%, while the 10-year BDFS rates were 71, 63 and 32%, respectively. Metastatic disease was reported in 0.4, 5.7 and 15.4% of low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients, respectively. The salvage treatment rate was 18%. Seventy-five (13.9%) patients died. PCa-specific death was registered in 18 (3.3%) patients (0, 3.8 and 11% in the low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups, respectively). Side effects included bladder outlet obstruction (28.3%), Grade I, II and III stress urinary incontinence (13.8, 2.4 and 0.7%, respectively) and recto-urethral fistula (0.7%). Preserved potency was 25.4% (in previously potent patients). CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates the efficacy and safety of HIFU for localized PCa. HIFU is a therapeutic option for patients of advanced age, in the low- or intermediate-risk groups, and with a life expectancy of ∼10 years.

Prospective blinded comparison of real-time sonoelastography targeted versus randomised biopsy of the prostate in the primary and re-biopsy setting.

PURPOSE: To investigate cancer detection rates and percentage of tumour per core between real-time sonoelastography (RTE) targeted biopsy and lateralised tenfold random biopsy of the prostate in the primary and re-biopsy setting. METHODS: Patients undergoing primary or re-biopsy of the prostate were included. Systematic RTE (EUB 7500, Hitachi Medical Systems, Tokio, Japan) was performed with the patient in the left lateral position. A maximum of four RTE targeted biopsies of the peripheral zone were taken following by a lateralised tenfold biopsy done by a second investigator blinded to the RTE findings. RTE targeted and random biopsy cylinders from corresponding areas were compared for percentage of tumour per core. Chi-square test and Wilcoxon signed rank test were used to compare differences between different groups. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-nine patients were included (52 with primary biopsy, 87 with re-biopsy). Prostate cancer was found in 73 (52.5%) patients. Cancer detection rates per core were 23.2% versus 9.2% and 21.9% versus 12.7% for RTE targeted and random biopsies in the primary and re-biopsy setting, which was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The mean percentage of prostate cancer per core from corresponding areas was significantly higher in RTE targeted compared to random biopsy cores with 21.5% versus 16.4% (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: RTE targeted biopsy significantly increases cancer detection rates per core in comparison with random biopsy. The difference is more pronounced in the primary biopsy setting. RTE targeted biopsy cores are of improved diagnostic value due significantly higher percentages of cancer compared to random biopsy cores.