Cancer Control Outcomes Following Focal Therapy Using High-intensity Focused Ultrasound in 1379 Men with Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: A Multi-institute 15-year Experience.

BACKGROUND: Focal therapy aims to treat areas of cancer to confer oncological control whilst reducing treatment-related functional detriment. OBJECTIVE: To report oncological outcomes and adverse events following focal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for treating nonmetastatic prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An analysis of 1379 patients with ≥6 mo of follow-up prospectively recorded in the HIFU Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment (HEAT) registry from 13 UK centres (2005-2020) was conducted. Five or more years of follow-up was available for 325 (24%) patients. Focal HIFU therapy used a transrectal ultrasound-guided device (Sonablate; Sonacare Inc., Charlotte, NC, USA). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Failure-free survival (FFS) was primarily defined as avoidance of no evidence of disease to require salvage whole-gland or systemic treatment, or metastases or prostate cancer-specific mortality. Differences in FFS between D'Amico risk groups were determined using a log-rank analysis. Adverse events were reported using Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The median (interquartile range) age was 66 (60-71) yr and prostate-specific antigen was 6.9 (4.9-9.4) ng/ml with D'Amico intermediate risk in 65% (896/1379) and high risk in 28% (386/1379). The overall median follow-up was 32 (17-58) mo; for those with ≥5 yr of follow-up, it was 82 (72-94). A total of 252 patients had repeat focal treatment due to residual or recurrent cancer; overall 92 patients required salvage whole-gland treatment. Kaplan-Meier 7-yr FFS was 69% (64-74%). Seven-year FFS in intermediate- and high-risk cancers was 68% (95% confidence interval [CI] 62-75%) and 65% (95% CI 56-74%; p = 0.3). Clavien-Dindo >2 adverse events occurred in 0.5% (7/1379). The median 10-yr follow-up is lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Focal HIFU in carefully selected patients with clinically significant prostate cancer, with six and three of ten patients having, respectively, intermediate- and high-risk cancer, has good cancer control in the medium term. PATIENT SUMMARY: Focal high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment to areas of prostate with cancer can provide an alternative to treating the whole prostate. This treatment modality has good medium-term cancer control over 7 yr, although 10-yr data are not yet available.

Metastatic prostate cancer men's attitudes towards treatment of the local tumour and metastasis evaluative research (IP5-MATTER): protocol for a prospective, multicentre discrete choice experiment study.

INTRODUCTION: Systemic therapy with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and intensification with agents such as docetaxel, abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide has resulted in improved overall survival in men with de novo synchronous metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Novel local cytoreductive treatments and metastasis-directed therapy are now being evaluated. Such interventions may provide added survival benefit or delay the requirement for further systemic agents and associated toxicity but can confer additional harm. Understanding men's preferences for treatment options in this disease state is crucial for patients, clinicians, carers and future healthcare service providers. METHODS: Using a prospective, multicentre discrete choice experiment (DCE), we aim to determine the attributes associated with treatment that are most important to men with mHSPC. Furthermore, we plan to determine men's preferences for, and trade-offs between, the attributes (survival and side effects) of different treatment options including systemic therapy, local cytoreductive approaches (external beam radiotherapy, cytoreductive radical prostatectomy or minimally invasive ablative therapy) and metastases-directed therapies (metastasectomy or stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy). All men with newly diagnosed mHSPC within 4 months of commencing ADT and WHO performance status 0-2 are eligible. Men who have previously consented to a cytoreductive treatment or have developed castrate-resistant disease will be excluded. This study includes a qualitative analysis component, with patients (n=15) and healthcare professionals (n=5), to identify and define the key attributes associated with treatment options that would warrant trade-off evaluation in a DCE. The main phase component planned recruitment is 300 patients over 1 year, commencing in January 2021, with planned study completion in March 2022. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Health Research Authority East of England, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 20/EE/0194). Project information will be reported on the publicly available Imperial College London website and the Heath Economics Research Unit (HERU website including the HERU Blog). We will use the social media accounts of IP5-MATTER, Imperial Prostate London, HERU and the individual researchers to disseminate key findings following publication. Findings from the study will be presented at national/international conferences and peer-reviewed journals. Authorship policy will follow the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04590976.

Can quantitative analysis of multi-parametric MRI independently predict failure of focal salvage HIFU therapy in men with radio-recurrent prostate cancer?

OBJECTIVES: Focal salvage HIFU is a feasible therapeutic option in some men who have recurrence after primary radiotherapy for prostate cancer. We aimed to determine if multi-parametric quantitative parameters, in addition to clinical factors, might have a role in independently predicting focal salvage HIFU outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective registry analysis included 150 consecutive men who underwent focal salvage HIFU (Sonablate500) (2006-2015); 89 had mpMRI available. Metastatic disease was excluded by nodal assessment on pelvic MRI, a radioisotope bone-scan and/or choline or FDG PET/CT scan. All men had mpMRI and either transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy or targeted and systematic TRUS-biopsy. mpMRI included T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhancement. Pre-HIFU quantitative mpMRI data was obtained using Horos DICOM Viewer v3.3.5 for general MRI parameters and IB DCE v2.0 plug-in. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined by biochemical failure and/or positive localized or distant imaging results and/or positive biopsy and/or systemic therapy and/or metastases/prostate cancer-specific death. Potential predictors of PFS were analyzed by univariable and multivariable Cox-regression. RESULTS: Median age at focal salvage HIFU was 71 years (interquartile range [IQR] 65-74.5) and median PSA pre-focal salvage treatment was 5.8ng/ml (3.8-8). Median follow-up was 35 months (23-47) and median time to failure was 15 months (7.8-24.3). D-Amico low, intermediate and high-risk disease was present in 1% (1/89), 40% (36/89) and 43% (38/89) prior to focal salvage HIFU (16% missing data). 56% (50/89) failed by the composite outcome. A total of 22 factors were evaluated on univariable and 8 factors on multivariable analysis. The following quantitative parameters were included: Ktrans, Kep, Ve, Vp, IS, rTTP and TTP. On univariable analysis, PSA, prostate volume at time of radiotherapy failure and Ve (median) value were predictors for failure. Ve represents extracellular fraction of the whole tissue volume. On multivariable analysis, only Ve (median) value remained as an independent predictor. CONCLUSIONS: One pharmacokinetic quantitative parameter based on DCE sequences seems to independently predict failure following focal salvage HIFU for radio-recurrent prostate cancer. This likely relates to the tumor microenvironment producing heat-sinks which counter the heating effect of HIFU. Further validation in larger datasets and evaluating mechanisms to reduce heat-sinks are required.

Natural history, trajectory, and management of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients in the United Kingdom.

PURPOSE: The trajectory of mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is essential for clinical decisions, yet the focus so far has been on admission characteristics without consideration of the dynamic course of the disease in the context of applied therapeutic interventions. METHODS: We included adult patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) within 48 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission with complete clinical data until ICU death or discharge. We examined the importance of factors associated with disease progression over the first week, implementation and responsiveness to interventions used in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and ICU outcome. We used machine learning (ML) and Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods to characterise the evolution of clinical parameters and our ICU data visualisation tool is available as a web-based widget ( https://www.CovidUK.ICU ). RESULTS: Data for 633 adults with COVID-19 who underwent IMV between 01 March 2020 and 31 August 2020 were analysed. Overall mortality was 43.3% and highest with non-resolution of hypoxaemia [60.4% vs17.6%; P < 0.001; median PaO2/FiO2 on the day of death was 12.3(8.9-18.4) kPa] and non-response to proning (69.5% vs.31.1%; P < 0.001). Two ML models using weeklong data demonstrated an increased predictive accuracy for mortality compared to admission data (74.5% and 76.3% vs 60%, respectively). XAI models highlighted the increasing importance, over the first week, of PaO2/FiO2 in predicting mortality. Prone positioning improved oxygenation only in 45% of patients. A higher peak pressure (OR 1.42[1.06-1.91]; P < 0.05), raised respiratory component (OR 1.71[ 1.17-2.5]; P < 0.01) and cardiovascular component (OR 1.36 [1.04-1.75]; P < 0.05) of the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score and raised lactate (OR 1.33 [0.99-1.79]; P = 0.057) immediately prior to application of prone positioning were associated with lack of oxygenation response. Prone positioning was not applied to 76% of patients with moderate hypoxemia and 45% of those with severe hypoxemia and patients who died without receiving proning interventions had more missed opportunities for prone intervention [7 (3-15.5) versus 2 (0-6); P < 0.001]. Despite the severity of gas exchange deficit, most patients received lung-protective ventilation with tidal volumes less than 8 mL/kg and plateau pressures less than 30cmH2O. This was despite systematic errors in measurement of height and derived ideal body weight. CONCLUSIONS: Refractory hypoxaemia remains a major association with mortality, yet evidence based ARDS interventions, in particular prone positioning, were not implemented and had delayed application with an associated reduced responsiveness. Real-time service evaluation techniques offer opportunities to assess the delivery of care and improve protocolised implementation of evidence-based ARDS interventions, which might be associated with improvements in survival.

Conventional radical versus focal treatment for localised prostate cancer: a propensity score weighted comparison of 6-year tumour control.

BACKGROUND: For localised prostate cancer, focal therapy offers an organ-sparing alternative to radical treatments (radiotherapy or prostatectomy). Currently, there is no randomised comparative effectiveness data evaluating cancer control of both strategies. METHODS: Following the eligibility criteria PSA < 20 ng/mL, Gleason score ≤ 7 and T-stage ≤ T2c, we included 830 radical (440 radiotherapy, 390 prostatectomy) and 530 focal therapy (cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound or high-dose-rate brachytherapy) patients treated between 2005 and 2018 from multicentre registries in the Netherlands and the UK. A propensity score weighted (PSW) analysis was performed to compare failure-free survival (FFS), with failure defined as salvage treatment, metastatic disease, systemic treatment (androgen deprivation therapy or chemotherapy), or progression to watchful waiting. The secondary outcome was overall survival (OS). Median (IQR) follow-up in each cohort was 55 (28-83) and 62 (42-83) months, respectively. RESULTS: At baseline, radical patients had higher PSA (10.3 versus 7.9) and higher-grade disease (31% ISUP 3 versus 11%) compared to focal patients. After PSW, all covariates were balanced (SMD < 0.1). 6-year weighted FFS was higher after radical therapy (80.3%, 95% CI 73.9-87.3) than after focal therapy (72.8%, 95% CI 66.8-79.8) although not statistically significant (p = 0.1). 6-year weighted OS was significantly lower after radical therapy (93.4%, 95% CI 90.1-95.2 versus 97.5%, 95% CI 94-99.9; p = 0.02). When compared in a three-way analysis, focal and LRP patients had a higher risk of treatment failure than EBRT patients (p < 0.001), but EBRT patients had a higher risk of mortality than focal patients (p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of a cohort-based analysis in which residual confounders are likely to exist, we found no clinically relevant difference in cancer control conferred by focal therapy compared to radical therapy at 6 years.

Population-Based Prostate Cancer Screening With Magnetic Resonance Imaging or Ultrasonography: The IP1-PROSTAGRAM Study.

IMPORTANCE: Screening for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing can lead to problems of underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis. Short, noncontrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or transrectal ultrasonography might overcome these limitations. OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of PSA testing, MRI, and ultrasonography as screening tests for prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective, population-based, blinded cohort study was conducted at 7 primary care practices and 2 imaging centers in the United Kingdom. Men 50 to 69 years of age were invited for prostate cancer screening from October 10, 2018, to May 15, 2019. INTERVENTIONS: All participants underwent screening with a PSA test, MRI (T2 weighted and diffusion), and ultrasonography (B-mode and shear wave elastography). The tests were independently interpreted without knowledge of other results. Both imaging tests were reported on a validated 5-point scale of suspicion. If any test result was positive, a systematic 12-core biopsy was performed. Additional image fusion-targeted biopsies were performed if the MRI or ultrasonography results were positive. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcome was the proportion of men with positive MRI or ultrasonography (defined as a score of 3-5 or 4-5) or PSA test (defined as PSA ≥3 µg/L) results. Key secondary outcomes were the number of clinically significant and clinically insignificant cancers detected if each test was used exclusively. Clinically significant cancer was defined as any Gleason score of 3+4 or higher. RESULTS: A total of 2034 men were invited to participate; of 411 who attended screening, 408 consented to receive all screening tests. The proportion with positive MRI results (score, 3-5) was higher than the proportion with positive PSA test results (72 [17.7%; 95% CI, 14.3%-21.8%] vs 40 [9.9%; 95% CI, 7.3%-13.2%]; P < .001). The proportion with positive ultrasonography results (score, 3-5) was also higher than the proportion of those with positive PSA test results (96 [23.7%; 95% CI, 19.8%-28.1%]; P < .001). For an imaging threshold of score 4 to 5, the proportion with positive MRI results was similar to the proportion with positive PSA test results (43 [10.6%; 95% CI, 7.9%-14.0%]; P = .71), as was the proportion with positive ultrasonography results (52 [12.8%; 95% CI, 9.9%-16.5%]; P = .15). The PSA test (≥3 ng/mL) detected 7 clinically significant cancers, an MRI score of 3 to 5 detected 14 cancers, an MRI score of 4 to 5 detected 11 cancers, an ultrasonography score of 3 to 5 detected 9 cancer, and an ultrasonography score of 4 to 5 detected 4 cancers. Clinically insignificant cancers were diagnosed by PSA testing in 6 cases, by an MRI score of 3 to 5 in 7 cases, an MRI score of 4 to 5 in 5 cases, an ultrasonography score of 3 to 5 in 13 cases, and an ultrasonography score of 4 to 5 in 7 cases. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study, when screening the general population for prostate cancer, MRI using a score of 4 or 5 to define a positive test result compared with PSA alone at 3 ng/mL or higher was associated with more men diagnosed with clinically significant cancer, without an increase in the number of men advised to undergo biopsy or overdiagnosed with clinically insignificant cancer. There was no evidence that ultrasonography would have better performance compared with PSA testing alone.

Focal therapy compared to radical prostatectomy for non-metastatic prostate cancer: a propensity score-matched study.

INTRODUCTION: Focal therapy (FT) ablates areas of prostate cancer rather than treating the whole gland. We compared oncological outcomes of FT to radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS: Using prospective multicentre databases of 761 FT and 572 RP cases (November/2005-September/2018), patients with PSA < 20 ng/ml, Gleason

Assessment of Return to Baseline Urinary and Sexual Function Following Primary Focal Cryotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The oncological outcomes in men with clinically significant prostate cancer following focal cryotherapy are promising, although functional outcomes are under-reported. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of focal cryotherapy on urinary and sexual function, specifically assessing return to baseline function. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Between October 2013 and November 2016, 58 of 122 men who underwent focal cryotherapy for predominantly anterior clinically significant localised prostate cancer within a prospective registry returned patient-reported outcome measure questionnaires, which included International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-15) questionnaires. INTERVENTION: Standard cryotherapy procedure using either the SeedNet or the Visual-ICE cryotherapy system. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary outcome was return to baseline function of IPSS score and IIEF erectile function (EF) subdomain. Cumulative incidence and Cox-regression analyses were performed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Probability of returning to baseline IPSS function was 78% at 12 mo and 87% at both 18 and 24 mo, with recovery seen up to 18 mo. For IIEF (EF domain), the probability of returning to baseline function was 85% at 12 mo and 89% at both 18 and 24 mo, with recovery seen up to 18 mo. Only the preoperative IIEF-EF score was associated with a poor outcome (hazard ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.93-0.999, p = 0.04). The main limitation was that only half of the patients returned their questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: In men undergoing primary focal cryotherapy, there is a high degree of preservation of urinary and erectile function with return to baseline function occurring from 3 mo and continuing up to 18 mo after focal cryotherapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: In men who underwent focal cryotherapy for prostate cancer, approximately nine in 10 returned to their baseline urinary and sexual function. Keeping in mind that level 1 evidence and long-term data are still needed, in men who wish to preserve urinary and sexual function, focal cryotherapy may be considered an alternative treatment option to radical therapy.

Focal HIFU therapy for anterior compared to posterior prostate cancer lesions.

OBJECTIVE: To compare cancer control in anterior compared to posterior prostate cancer lesions treated with a focal HIFU therapy approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospectively maintained national database, 598 patients underwent focal HIFU (Sonablate®500) (March/2007-November/2016). Follow-up occurred with 3-monthly clinic visits and PSA testing in the first year with PSA, every 6-12 months with mpMRI with biopsy for MRI-suspicion of recurrence. Treatment failure was any secondary treatment (ADT/chemotherapy, cryotherapy, EBRT, RRP, or re-HIFU), tumour recurrence with Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 on prostate biopsy without further treatment or metastases/prostate cancer-related mortality. Cases with anterior cancer were compared to those with posterior disease. RESULTS: 267 patients were analysed following eligibility criteria. 45 had an anterior focal-HIFU and 222 had a posterior focal-HIFU. Median age was 64 years and 66 years, respectively, with similar PSA level of 7.5 ng/ml and 6.92 ng/ml. 84% and 82%, respectively, had Gleason 3 + 4, 16% in both groups had Gleason 4 + 3, 0% and 2% had Gleason 4 + 4. Prostate volume was similar (33 ml vs. 36 ml, p = 0.315); median number of positive cores in biopsies was different in anterior and posterior tumours (7 vs. 5, p = 0.009), while medium cancer core length, and maximal cancer percentage of core were comparable. 17/45 (37.8%) anterior focal-HIFU patients compared to 45/222 (20.3%) posterior focal-HIFU patients required further treatment (p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Treating anterior prostate cancer lesions with focal HIFU may be less effective compared to posterior tumours.

A Comparison of Prostate Cancer Detection between Visual Estimation (Cognitive Registration) and Image Fusion (Software Registration) Targeted Transperineal Prostate Biopsy.

PURPOSE: We compared clinically significant prostate cancer detection by visual estimation and image fusion targeted transperineal prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicenter study included patients with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging lesions undergoing visual estimation or image fusion targeted transperineal biopsy (April 2017-March 2020). Propensity score matching was performed using demographics (age and ethnicity), clinical features (prostate specific antigen, prostate volume, prostate specific antigen density and digital rectal examination), multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging variables (number of lesions, PI-RADS® score, index lesion diameter, whether the lesion was diffuse and radiological T stage) and biopsy factors (number of cores, operator experience and anesthetic type). Matched groups were compared overall and by operator grade, PI-RADS score, lesion multiplicity, prostate volume and anesthetic type using targeted-only and targeted plus systematic histology. Multiple clinically significant prostate cancer thresholds were evaluated (primary: Gleason ≥3+4). RESULTS: A total of 1,071 patients with a median age of 67.3 years (IQR 61.3-72.4), median prostate specific antigen of 7.5 ng/ml (IQR 5.3-11.2) and 1,430 total lesions underwent targeted-only biopsies (visual estimation: 372 patients, 494 lesions; image fusion: 699 patients, 936 lesions). A total of 770 patients with a median age of 67.4 years (IQR 61-72.1), median prostate specific antigen of 7.1 ng/ml (IQR 5.2-10.6) and 919 total lesions underwent targeted plus systematic biopsies (visual estimation: 271 patients, 322 lesions; image fusion: 499 patients, 597 lesions). Matched comparisons demonstrated no overall difference in clinically significant prostate cancer detection between visual estimation and image fusion (primary: targeted-only 54% vs 57.4%, p=0.302; targeted plus systematic 51.2% vs 58.2%, p=0.123). Senior urologists had significantly higher detection rates using image fusion (primary: targeted-only 45.4% vs 63.7%, p=0.001; targeted plus systematic 39.4% vs 64.5%, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We found no overall difference in clinically significant prostate cancer detection, although image fusion may be superior in experienced hands.

An Exploratory Study of Dose Escalation vs Standard Focal High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Treating Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer.

Objective: Analysis of treatment success regarding oncological recurrence rate between standard and dose escalation focal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) of prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: In this analysis of our prospectively maintained HIFU (Sonablate® 500) database, 598 patients were identified who underwent a focal HIFU (Sonablate 500) between March 2007 and November 2016. Follow-up occurred with 3-monthly clinic visits and prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing in the first year. Thereafter, PSA was measured 6-monthly or annually at least. Routine and for-cause multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) was conducted with biopsy for MRI suspicion of recurrence. Treatments were delivered in a quadrant or hemiablation fashion depending on the gland volume as well as tumor volume and location. Before mid-2015, standard focal HIFU was used (two HIFU blocks); after this date, some urologists conducted dose escalation focal HIFU (three overlapping HIFU blocks). Propensity matching was used to ensure two matched groups, leading to 162 cases for this analysis. Treatment failure was defined by any secondary treatment (systemic therapy, cryotherapy, radiotherapy, prostatectomy, or further HIFU), metastasis from prostate cancer without further treatment, tumor recurrence with Gleason score ≥7 (≥3 + 4) on prostate biopsy without further treatment, or prostate cancer-related mortality. Complications and side-effects were also compared. Results: Median age was 64.5 years (interquartile range [IQR] 60-73.5) in the standard focal-HIFU group and 64.5 years (IQR 60-69) in the dose-escalation group. Median prostate volume was 37 mL (IQR 17-103) in the standard group and 47.5 mL (IQR 19-121) in the dose-escalation group. As tumor volume on mpMRI and Gleason score were major matching criteria, these were identical with 0.43 mL (IQR 0.05-2.5) and Gleason 3 + 3 = 6 in 1 out of 32 (3%), 3 + 4 = 7 in 27 out of 32 (84%), and 4 + 3 = 7 in 4 out of 32 (13%). Recurrence in treated areas was found in 10 out of 32 (31%) when standard treatment zones were applied, and in 6 out of 32 (19%) of dose-escalation focal HIFU (p = 0.007). Conclusion: This exploratory study shows that dose escalation focal HIFU may achieve higher rates of disease control compared with standard focal HIFU. Further prospective comparative studies are needed.

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.

OBJECTIVES: To assess change in functional outcomes after a second focal high-intensity focused ultrasonography (HIFU) treatment compared with outcomes after one focal HIFU treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicentre study (2005-2016), 821 men underwent focal HIFU for localized non-metastatic prostate cancer. The patient-reported outcome measures of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), pad usage and erectile function (EF) score were prospectively collected for up to 3 years. To be included in the study, completion of at least one follow-up questionnaire was required. The primary outcome was comparison of change in functional outcomes between baseline and follow-up after one focal HIFU procedure vs after a second focal HIFU procedure, using IPSS, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questionnaires. RESULTS: Of 821 men, 654 underwent one focal HIFU procedure and 167 underwent a second focal HIFU procedure. A total of 355 (54.3%) men undergoing one focal HIFU procedure and 65 (38.9%) with a second focal HIFU procedure returned follow-up questionnaires, respectively. The mean age and prostate-specific antigen level were 66.4 and 65.6 years, and 7.9 and 8.4 ng/mL, respectively. After one focal HIFU treatment, the mean change in IPSS was -0.03 (P = 0.02) and in IIEF (EF score) it was -0.4 (P = 0.02) at 1-2 years, with no subsequent decline. Absolute rates of erectile dysfunction increased from 9.9% to 20.8% (P = 0.08), leak-free continence decreased from 77.9% to 72.8% (P = 0.06) and pad-free continence from 98.6% to 94.8% (P = 0.07) at 1-2 years, respectively. IPSS prior to second focal HIFU treatment compared to baseline IPSS prior to first focal HIFU treatment was lower by -1.3 (P = 0.02), but mean IPSS change was +1.4 at 1-2 years (P = 0.03) and +1.2 at 2-3 years (P = 0.003) after the second focal HIFU treatment. The mean change in EF score after the second focal HIFU treatment was -0.2 at 1-2 years (P = 0.60) and -0.5 at 2-3 years (P = 0.10), with 17.8% and 6.2% of men with new erectile dysfunction. The rate of new pad use was 1.8% at 1-2 years and 2.6% at 2-3 years. CONCLUSION: A second focal HIFU procedure causes minor detrimental effects on urinary function and EF. These data can be used to counsel patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer prior to considering HIFU therapy.

Prostate Specific Antigen Criteria to Diagnose Failure of Cancer Control following Focal Therapy of Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Using High Intensity Focused Ultrasound.

PURPOSE: We determined whether prostate specific antigen criteria after focal high intensity focused ultrasound to treat prostate cancer could diagnose treatment failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 598 patients in a prospectively maintained national database underwent focal high intensity focused ultrasound with a Sonablate® 500 device from March 2007 to November 2016. Followup consisted of 3-month clinic visits and prostate specific antigen testing in year 1 with prostate specific antigen measurement every 6 to 12 months and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with biopsy for magnetic resonance imaging suspicious for recurrence. Treatment failure was considered any secondary treatment, tumor recurrence with Gleason 3 + 4 or greater disease on prostate biopsy without further treatment or metastasis and/or prostate cancer related mortality. To diagnose failure we evaluated a series of nadir + x thresholds with x values of 0.1 to 2.0 ng/ml. RESULTS: Median patient age was 65 years (IQR 60-71) and the median Gleason score was 7 (range 6-9). Gleason 3 + 4 or greater disease was present in 80% of cases. Tumors were radiologically staged as T1c-T2c in 522 of the 596 patients (88%) and as T3a/b in 74 (12.4%). Baseline median prostate specific antigen was 7.80 ng/ml (IQR 5.96-10.45) in failed cases and 6.77 ng/ml (IQR 2.65-9.71) in cases without failure. Optimal performance according to the Youden index to indicate the most appropriate nadir + x at all analyzed time points at 3-month intervals showed that nadir + 1.0 ng/ml would have 27.3% to 100% sensitivity and 39.4% to 85.6% specificity depending on the time of evaluation in the first 3 years. Nadir + 1.5 ng/ml showed 18.2% to 100% sensitivity and 60.6% to 91.8% specificity with nadir + 2.0 ng/ml leading to similar sensitivity and specificity ranges. Nadir + 1.0 ng/ml at 12 months and nadir + 1.5 ng/ml at 24 and 36 months had 100% sensitivity and 96.1% to 100% negative predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: Following focal high intensity focused ultrasound a prostate specific antigen nadir of 1.0 ng/ml at 12 months and 1.5 ng/ml at 24 to 36 months might be used to triage men requiring magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy. These data need prospective validation.

Likert vs PI-RADS v2: a comparison of two radiological scoring systems for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical validity and utility of Likert assessment and the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2 in the detection of clinically significant and insignificant prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 489 pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) scans in consecutive patients were subject to prospective paired reporting using both Likert and PI-RADS v2 by expert uro-radiologists. Patients were offered biopsy for any Likert or PI-RADS score ≥4 or a score of 3 with PSA density ≥0.12 ng/mL/mL. Utility was evaluated in terms of proportion biopsied, and proportion of clinically significant and insignificant cancer detected (both overall and on a 'per score' basis). In those patients biopsied, the overall accuracy of each system was assessed by calculating total and partial area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The primary threshold of significance was Gleason ≥3 + 4. Secondary thresholds of Gleason ≥4 + 3, Ahmed/UCL1 (Gleason ≥4 + 3 or maximum cancer core length [CCL] ≥6 or total CCL≥6) and Ahmed/UCL2 (Gleason ≥3 + 4 or maximum CCL ≥4 or total CCL ≥6) were also used. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 66 (60-72) years and the median (IQR) prostate-specific antigen level was 7 (5-10) ng/mL. A similar proportion of men met the biopsy threshold and underwent biopsy in both groups (83.8% [Likert] vs 84.8% [PI-RADS v2]; P = 0.704). The Likert system predicted more clinically significant cancers than PI-RADS across all disease thresholds. Rates of insignificant cancers were comparable in each group. ROC analysis of biopsied patients showed that, although both scoring systems performed well as predictors of significant cancer, Likert scoring was superior to PI-RADS v2, exhibiting higher total and partial areas under the ROC curve. CONCLUSIONS: Both scoring systems demonstrated good diagnostic performance, with similar rates of decision to biopsy. Overall, Likert was superior by all definitions of clinically significant prostate cancer. It has the advantages of being flexible, intuitive and allowing inclusion of clinical data. However, its use should only be considered once radiologists have developed sufficient experience in reporting prostate mpMRI.

A Multicentre Analysis of the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Following Transperineal Image-fusion Targeted and Nontargeted Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Men at Risk.

BACKGROUND: Prostate biopsy guided by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used to obtain tissue from men with suspected prostate cancer (PC). OBJECTIVE: To report a multicentre series of image-fusion transperineal prostate biopsies and compare the diagnostic yield of clinically significant PC (csPC) between targeted and nontargeted biopsies. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The study included 640 consecutive patients with elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA) presenting for first biopsy or following a previous negative transrectal biopsy under the care of 13 urologists in 11 centres in the UK (April 2014-June 2017). INTERVENTION: Multiparametric MRI was carried out in 61 approved prostate MRI centres with transperineal targeted alone (n=283) or targeted plus nontargeted (n=357) transperineal rigid image-fusion targeted biopsy (MIM-Symphony-DX). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Rates of csPC and insignificant cancer detection in targeted and nontargeted biopsies were measured using a number of thresholds to define clinical significance. The primary definition was Gleason≥4+3 or any grade ≥6mm. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The mean age, median PSA, and median prostate volume for the cohort were 63.8yr (standard deviation [SD] 8.4), 6.3 ng/ml (SD 5.8), and 42.0cm3 (SD 24.7), respectively. Overall, 276/640 men (43.1%) were diagnosed with csPC. csPC was detected from targeted biopsies alone in 263/640 cases (41.1%). Of the 357 men who underwent nontargeted biopsies, three (0.8%) had csPC exclusively in nontargeted cores, with no evidence of cancer in targeted cores. Overall, 32/357 (9.0%) had csPC in nontargeted biopsies regardless of the targeted biopsy findings. Clinically insignificant disease in nontargeted biopsies was detected in 93/357 men (26.1%). Our findings were consistent across all other thresholds of clinical significance. Limitations include the lack of nontargeted biopsies in all men. CONCLUSIONS: In this large multicentre series, nontargeted prostate biopsy cores had a low yield of csPC and a high yield of clinically insignificant PC. An image-fusion targeted-biopsy-only approach maintains high detection for csPC and low detection of clinically insignificant cancers. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we found that following prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted transperineal biopsies of suspicious areas, the clinical value of performing additional extensive unguided biopsies of nonsuspicious areas is limited and can often find insignificant cancers that do not need treatment.

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.

OBJECTIVE: To report medium-term oncological outcomes in men receiving primary focal treatment with high-intensity focused ultrasonography ( HIFU) for prostate cancer (PCa). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with PCa treated with primary focal HIFU at two centres by six treating clinicians were assessed. Patients were submitted to either focal ablation or hemi-ablation using HIFU (Sonablate 500). The primary objective of the study was to assess medium-term oncological outcomes, defined as overall survival, freedom from biopsy failure, freedom from any further treatment and freedom from radical treatment after focal HIFU. The secondary objective was to evaluate the changes in pathological features among patients treated with focal HIFU over time. We also assessed the relationship between year of surgery and 5-year retreatment probability. RESULTS: A total of 1032 men treated between November 2005 and October 2017 were assessed. The median age was 65 years and median prostate-specific antigen level was 7 ng/mL. The majority of patients had a Gleason score of 3 + 4 or above (80.3%). The median (interquartile range) follow-up was 36 (14-64) months. The overall survival rates at 24, 60 and 96 months were 99%, 97% and 97%, respectively. Freedom from biopsy failure, defined as absence of Gleason 3 + 4 disease, was 84%, 64% and 54% at 24, 60 and 96 months. Freedom from any further treatment was 85%, 59% and 46% at 24, 60 and 96 months, respectively. Approximately 70% of patients who were retreated received a second focal treatment. Freedom from radical treatment was 98%, 91% and 81% at 24, 60 and 96 months. During the study period, we observed an increase in the proportion of patients undergoing focal HIFU with Gleason 3 + 4 disease and with T2 stage disease as defined by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Finally, there was a reduction over time in the proportion of patients undergoing re-treatment within 5 years of first treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Focal HIFU for PCa is a feasible therapeutic strategy, with acceptable survival and oncological results and a reduction in the 5-year retreatment rates over the last decade. Re-do focal treatment is a feasible technique whose functional and oncological outcomes have still to be evaluated.

Early-Medium-Term Outcomes of Primary Focal Cryotherapy to Treat Nonmetastatic Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer from a Prospective Multicentre Registry.

BACKGROUND: Focal cryotherapy can be used to treat patients with clinically significant nonmetastatic prostate cancer to reduce side effects. OBJECTIVE: Early-medium-term cancer control and functional outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective registry-based case series of 122 consecutive patients undergoing focal cryotherapy between October 1, 2013, and November 30, 2016, in five UK centres. Median follow-up was 27.8mo [interquartile range (IQR) 19.5-36.7]. A total of 35 patients (28.7%) had National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high risk and 87 (71.3%) had intermediate risk disease. Risk and zonal stratification included multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) with targeted and systematic biopsies, or transperineal mapping biopsies. INTERVENTION: Focal cryoablation of MR-visible tumours. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Follow-up involved prostate-specific antigen (PSA) monitoring, mpMRI, and for-cause biopsies. Primary outcome was failure-free survival (FFS), defined as transition to radical, whole-gland, or systemic therapy, or metastases/death. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and functional outcomes. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 80 (65.6%) had anterior ablation, 23 (19.7%) combined posterior and anterior ablation, and two (1.6%) posterior ablation alone (SeedNet or Visual-ICE, BTG plc). Median age was 68.7yr (IQR 64.9-73.8) and preoperative PSA 10.8ng/ml (IQR 7.8-15.6). Overall FFS at 3yr was 90.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) 84.2-97.3]. When stratified for the NCCN risk group, 3-yr outcomes were 84.7% (95% CI 71.4-100) in high risk and 93.3% (95% CI 86.8-100) in intermediate risk. At last follow-up, incontinence defined as any pad use was 0/69 (0%) and erectile dysfunction (defined as erections insufficient for penetration) was 5/31 (16.1%). Limitations include lack of long-term outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Focal cryotherapy primarily for anterior intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer results in good rates of cancer control and low rates of treatment-related side effects. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this multicentre study of 122 patients undergoing focal cryotherapy for medium- to high-risk prostate cancer, at 3yr, no patient died from their cancer whilst failure-free survival, was approximately 90%. None of the patients needed pads for managing urine leakage, although 16% had erection problems.

A Multicentre Study of 5-year Outcomes Following Focal Therapy in Treating Clinically Significant Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Clinically significant nonmetastatic prostate cancer (PCa) is currently treated using whole-gland therapy. This approach is effective but can have urinary, sexual, and rectal side effects. OBJECTIVE: To report on 5-yr PCa control following focal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) therapy to treat individual areas of cancer within the prostate. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a prospective study of 625 consecutive patients with nonmetastatic clinically significant PCa undergoing focal HIFU therapy (Sonablate) in secondary care centres between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2015. A minimum of 6-mo follow-up was available for599 patients. Intermediate- or high-risk PCa was found in 505 patients (84%). INTERVENTION: Disease was localised using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) combined with targeted and systematic biopsies, or transperineal mapping biopsies. Areas of significant disease were treated. Follow-up included prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurement, mpMRI, and biopsies. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint, failure-free survival (FFS), was defined as freedom from radical or systemic therapy, metastases, and cancer-specific mortality. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The median follow-up was 56 mo (interquartile range [IQR] 35-70). The median age was 65 yr (IQR 61-71) and median preoperative PSA was 7.2 ng/ml (IQR 5.2-10.0). FFS was 99% (95% confidence interval [CI] 98-100%) at 1 yr, 92% (95% CI 90-95%) at 3 yr, and 88% (95% 85-91%) at 5 yr. For the whole patient cohort, metastasis-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival at 5 yr was 98% (95% CI 97-99%), 100%, and 99% (95% CI 97-100%), respectively. Among patients who returned validated questionnaires, 241/247 (98%) achieved complete pad-free urinary continence and none required more than 1 pad/d. Limitations include the lack of long-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Focal therapy for select patients with clinically significant nonmetastatic prostate cancer is effective in the medium term and has a low probability of side effects. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this multicentre study of 625 patients undergoing focal therapy using high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), failure-free survival, metastasis-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival were 88%, 98%, 100%, and 99%, respectively. Urinary incontinence (any pad use) was 2%. Focal HIFU therapy for patients with clinically significant prostate cancer that has not spread has a low probability of side effects and is effective at 5 yr.