High-intensity focused ultrasound with visually directed power adjustment for focal treatment of localized prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To characterize patient outcomes following visually directed high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for focal treatment of localized prostate cancer. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of cancer-control outcomes and complication rates among men with localized prostate cancer treated with visually directed focal HIFU. Study outcomes were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis model. RESULTS: A total of 8 observational studies with 1,819 patients (median age 67 years; prostate-specific antigen 7.1 mg/ml; prostate volume 36 ml) followed over a median of 24 months were included. The mean prostate-specific antigen nadir following visually directed focal HIFU was 2.2 ng/ml (95% CI 0.9-3.5 ng/ml), achieved after a median of 6 months post-treatment. A clinically significant positive biopsy was identified in 19.8% (95% CI 12.4-28.3%) of cases. Salvage treatment rates were 16.2% (95% CI 9.7-23.8%) for focal- or whole-gland treatment, and 8.6% (95% CI 6.1-11.5%) for whole-gland treatment. Complication rates were 16.7% (95% CI 9.9-24.6%) for de novo erectile dysfunction, 6.2% (95% CI 0.0-19.0%) for urinary retention, 3.0% (95% CI 2.1-3.9%) for urinary tract infection, 1.9% (95% CI 0.1-5.3%) for urinary incontinence, and 0.1% (95% CI 0.0-1.4%) for bowel injury. CONCLUSION: Limited evidence from eight observational studies demonstrated that visually directed HIFU for focal treatment of localized prostate cancer was associated with a relatively low risk of complications and acceptable cancer control over medium-term follow-up. Comparative, long-term safety and effectiveness results with visually directed focal HIFU are lacking.

High Intensity Focused Ultrasound Hemigland Ablation for Prostate Cancer: Initial Outcomes of a United States Series.

PURPOSE: We report outcomes of hemigland high intensity focused ultrasound ablation as primary treatment for localized prostate cancer in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 100 consecutive men underwent hemigland high intensity focused ultrasound (December 2015 to December 2019). Primary end point was treatment failure, defined as Grade Group 2 or greater on followup prostate biopsy, radical treatment, systemic therapy, metastases or prostate cancer specific mortality. IIEF (International Index of Erectile Function), I-PSS (International Prostate Symptom Score) and 90-day complications were reported. RESULTS: At study entry patients had very low (8%), low (20%), intermediate favorable (50%), intermediate unfavorable (17%) and high (5%) risk prostate cancer. Median followup was 20 months. The 2-year survival free from treatment failure, Grade Group 2 or greater recurrence, repeat focal high intensity focused ultrasound and radical treatment was 73%, 76%, 90% and 91%, respectively. Bilateral prostate cancer at diagnosis was the sole predictor for Grade Group 2 or greater recurrence (p=0.03). Of men who underwent posttreatment biopsy (58), 10 had in-field and 8 out-of-field Grade Group 2 or greater positive biopsy. Continence (zero pad) was maintained in 100% of patients. Median IIEF-5 and I-PSS scores before vs after hemigland high intensity focused ultrasound were 22 vs 21 (p=0.99) and 9 vs 6 (p=0.005), respectively. Minor and major complications occurred in 13% and 0% of patients. No patient had rectal fistula or died. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term results of focal high intensity focused ultrasound indicate safety, excellent potency and continence preservation, and adequate short-term prostate cancer control. Radical treatment was avoided in 91% of men at 2 years. Men with bilateral prostate cancer at diagnosis have increased risk for Grade Group 2 or greater recurrence. To our knowledge, this is the initial and largest United States series of focal high intensity focused ultrasound as primary treatment for prostate cancer.

Patient-reported Satisfaction and Regret Following Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Multicenter Evaluation.

Background: Several reports are available regarding the treatment decision regret of patients receiving conventional treatments for localized prostate cancer (PCa); yet data on patients undergoing focal therapy (FT) are sparse. Objective: To evaluate the treatment decision satisfaction and regret among patients who underwent FT for PCa with high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) or cryoablation (CRYO). Design setting and participants: We identified consecutive patients who underwent HIFU or CRYO FT as the primary treatment for localized PCa at three US institutions. A survey with validated questionnaires, including the five-question Decision Regret Scale (DRS), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5), was mailed to the patients. The regret score was calculated based on the five items of the DRS, and regret was defined as a DRS score of >25. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Multivariable logistic regression models were applied to assess the predictors of treatment decision regret. Results and limitations: Of 236 patients, 143 (61%) responded to the survey. Baseline characteristics were similar between responders and nonresponders. During a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 43 (26-68) mo, the treatment decision regret rate was 19.6%. On a multivariable analysis, higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at nadir after FT (odds ratio [OR] 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-2, p = 0.009), presence of PCa on follow-up biopsy (OR 3.98, 95% CI 1.5-10.6, p = 0.006), higher post-FT IPSS (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01-1.37, p = 0.03), and newly diagnosed impotence (OR 6.67, 95% CI 1.57-27, p = 0.03) were independent predictors of treatment regret. The type of energy treatment (HIFU/CRYO) was not a predictor of regret/satisfaction. Limitations include retrospective abstraction. Conclusions: FT for localized PCa is well accepted by the patients, with a low regret rate. Higher PSA at nadir, presence of cancer on follow-up biopsy, bothersome postoperative urinary symptoms, and impotence after FT were independent predictors of treatment decision regret. Patient summary: In this report, we looked at the factors affecting satisfaction and regret in patients with prostate cancer undergoing focal therapy. We found that focal therapy is well accepted by the patients, while presence of cancer on follow-up biopsy as well as bothersome urinary symptoms and sexual dysfunction can predict treatment decision regret.

Castleman disease of the hyaline-vascular type confined to the kidney.

The case is a 38-year-old man in whom a solitary subcapsular left renal cortical mass was successfully resected. Comorbidities included a benign epididymal cyst and a history of nephrolithiasis. Computed tomographic imaging demonstrated a 1.8-cm enhancing mass in the anterior midregion of the kidney. An open partial nephrectomy was performed, and histopathologic examination established a diagnosis of the hyaline-vascular type of Castleman disease (CD). The patient had an uneventful postoperative course and has experienced no local or metastatic recurrence in the 10 months since surgery. CD localized in the kidney is an exceptionally rare occurrence but should be included in the complete differential diagnosis of solitary renal cortical mass lesions.

Salvage robotic prostatectomy following whole gland high-intensity focused ultrasound with a Sonablate 500 device: technical feasibility and safety.

High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) has been used to treat localized prostate cancers. Similar to all forms of ablation, including radiation and cryoablation, there is a local persistence rate. Salvage robotic prostatectomy has been utilized but published series are multi-institutional, multi-surgeon, and do not segregate the different HIFU devices. The results are also grouped with other forms of ablation. This series describes the technical results of a single surgeon performing salvage robotic prostatectomy on only HIFU patients, and only after whole gland ablation on a Sonablate 500 device. A retrospective hospital and office chart review was performed of nine consecutive patients. Results of the surgical cases reveal an acceptable mean OR time of 130 min, mean estimated blood loss of 125 cc with no intraoperative or post-operative transfusions, and mean length of hospital stay of 2.4 days. Urinary catheters were removed after 7-10 days. All patients were pad free no longer than 35 days later. There was no surgical field or systemic complications in any patient. Intraoperative findings include diffuse fibrosis of the periprostatic tissues including the endopelvic and lateral pelvic fascia. The thermal changes make the surgery more tedious, particularly for nerve sparing. These cases support the stance that robotic salvage prostatectomy can be safely performed in this patient cohort with immediate surgical results similar to non-salvage cases.