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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Medium-term Outcomes after Whole-gland High-intensity Focused Ultrasound for the Treatment of Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer from a Multicentre Registry Cohort.

BACKGROUND: High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is a minimally-invasive treatment for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To report medium-term outcomes in men receiving primary whole-gland HIFU from a national multi-centre registry cohort. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Five-hundred and sixty-nine patients at eight hospitals were entered into an academic registry. INTERVENTION: Whole-gland HIFU (Sonablate 500) for primary nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Redo-HIFU was permitted as part of the intervention. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Our primary failure-free survival outcome incorporated no transition to any of the following: (1) local salvage therapy (surgery or radiotherapy), (2) systemic therapy, (3) metastases, or (4) prostate cancer-specific mortality. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and genitourinary function. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Mean age was 65 yr (47-87 yr). Median prostate-specific antigen was 7.0 ng/ml (interquartile range 4.4-10.2). National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease was 161 (28%), 321 (56%), and 81 (14%), respectively. One hundred and sixty three of 569 (29%) required a total of 185 redo-HIFU procedures. Median follow-up was 46 (interquartile range 23-61) mo. Failure-free survival at 5 yr after first HIFU was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 64-74). This was 87% (95% CI: 78-93), 63% (95% CI: 56-70), and 58% (95% CI: 32-77) for National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively. Fifty eight of 754 (7.7%) had one urinary tract infection, 22/574 (2.9%) a recurrent urinary tract infection, 22/754 (3%) epididymo-orchitis, 227/754 (30%) endoscopic interventions, 1/754 (0.13%) recto-urethral fistula, and 1/754 (0.13%) osteitis pubis. Of 206 known to be pad-free pre-HIFU, 183/206 (88%) remained pad free, and of 236 with good baseline erectile function, 91/236 (39%) maintained good function. The main limitation is lack of long-term data. CONCLUSIONS: Whole-gland HIFU is a repeatable day-case treatment that confers low rates of urinary incontinence. Disease control at a median of just under 5 yr of follow-up demonstrates its potential as a treatment for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Endoscopic interventions and erectile dysfunction rates are similar to other whole-gland treatments. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report we looked at the 5-yr outcomes following whole-gland high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment for prostate cancer and found that cancer control was acceptable with a low risk of urine leakage. However, risk of erectile dysfunction and further operations was similar to other whole-gland treatments like surgery and radiotherapy.

Testicular metastasis of transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder: an unusual site.

We present a 74-year-old man with a testicular metastasis originating from a transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder. Initially, radical cystectomy and ileal-conduit urinary diversion were performed. Three years later, he presented with a tumor in the left testicle, proved to harbor transitional cell carcinoma.