Evaluation of functional and oncological outcomes of localized prostate cancer after different minimally invasive therapeutic methods: A single center experience.

OBJECTIVES: To study the functional and oncological results of minimally invasive treatment methods: cryoablation, brachytherapy, and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) therapy of localized prostate cancer in a single hospital. METHODS: One hundred sixty patients with localized prostate cancer were treated with minimally invasive methods (53, 52, 55 patients with cryoablation, brachytherapy and HIFU therapy, respectively). Prostate-specific antigen and evaluation of post-procedure biopsies were used as an assessment. The review of functional indicators and quality of life was made with International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), quality of life (QoL) questionnaires. RESULTS: Patients after cryoablation showed worse results of oncological control according to positive repeat biopsies, best indicators were observed after brachytherapy. When considering the IPSS results, there were statistically significantly worse scores in the brachytherapy group in the early postoperative period, these differences do not reach statistical significance in the late period in the brachytherapy and cryoablation groups. Patients in the cryoablation group showed worse indicators of IIEF-5; in the early postoperative period; in the late follow-up period, the indicators of erectile function in patients in the cryoablation group did not statistically significantly differ from those in patients after brachytherapy. Patients after HIFU therapy showed fewer cases of de novo erectile dysfunction during the follow-up period of 3 years, higher average IIEF-5 scores, lower IPSS scores and better QoL results. CONCLUSION: The recurrence of prostate cancer was statistically significantly higher in the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 3 grade group. HIFU therapy had better urination indicators compared to other groups, that can be associated with the laser enucleation of prostatic hyperplasia. The advantage was noted in patients after HIFU therapy when comparing the parameters to the IIEF-5 thus, HIFU treatment had a better impact on patients' QoL with localized prostate cancer.

[Prospective comparison of cognitive and mpMR/US fusion biopsy for prostate cancer detection].

INTRODUCTION: According to the recommendations of the European Association of Urology the presence of a suspicious lesion on MRI is an indication for both primary and secondary MR-targeted biopsies. At the same time, the Russian Society of Urologists recommends to perform mpMR/US fusion biopsy only in patients with a prior negative biopsy. In clinical practice, mpMR/US fusion and cognitive biopsies are the most frequently performed. However, when comparing them, contradictory data on detection of clinically significant prostate cancer is obtained. OBJECTIVE: to compare the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer performing cognitive and mpMR/US fusion biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Inclusion criteria: PSA >2 ng/mL and/or a positive DRE, and/or a suspicious lesion on TRUS, and PI-RADSv2.1 lesion more or equal 3. At first, "unblinded" urologist performed a transperineal mpMR/ultrasound fusion and saturation biopsy. Then "blinded" urologist obtained transrectal cognitive biopsy Clinically significant cancer was defined as ISUP more or equal 2. RESULTS: We enrolled 96 patients. Median age was 63 years, prostate volume - 47 cm3 and PSA - 6.82 ng/mL. MpMR/US fusion and cognitive biopsies were comparable in regard to the detection rate of clinically significant (32.3% vs 25.0%; p=0.264), clinically insignificant cancer (25.0% and 26.0%; p=0.869) and overall detection rate (57.3% and 51%;p=0.385). Both biopsies missed clinically significant cancer with equal frequency (5.2%; p=0.839). Histological efficacy also was comparable. The number of positive cores between mpMR/US fusion and cognitive biopsy was equal (34.1% and 31.1% respectively; p= 0.415). At the same time, no statistically significant difference was found with respect to maximum cancer core length (53.1% vs 47.7%, respectively; p=0.293). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that both cognitive and mpMR/US fusion biopsies are equally accurate diagnostic methods for clinically significant prostate cancer detection, thus their wider introduction into clinical practice is necessary.