A comparison of time taken to return to baseline erectile function following focal and whole gland ablative therapies for localized prostate cancer: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review erectile function (EF) outcomes following primary whole gland (WG) and focal ablative therapies for localized prostate cancer to ascertain whether the treatment modality or intended treatment volume affects the time taken to recover baseline EF. METHOD AND MATERIALS: A systematic review was performed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis statement. Inclusion criteria were men with localized prostate cancer treated with primary, ablative therapy. Primary outcome was the return to baseline EF measured with objective, validated symptoms scores. Secondary outcome was use of phosphodiesterase inhibitors or erectile aids. Meta-analysis was not performed owing to heterogenous outcome measures. RESULTS: Of 222 articles identified in February 2017, 55 studies which reported EF after ablative therapy were identified but only 17 used validated outcome measures and met inclusion criteria. WG cryotherapy was used in 2 studies, WG high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) in 5, focal cryotherapy in 2, focal HIFU in 3, focal phototherapy or laser therapy in 4, vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy in 3, and irreversible electroporation in 2. WG cryotherapy was associated with a significant decline in EF at 6 months with minimal improvement at 36 months. Baseline IIEF-15 of patients undergoing focal HIFU fell 30 points at 1 month but returned to baseline by 6 months. The remaining focal therapies demonstrated minimal or no effect on EF, but the men in these studies had small foci of disease. The review is limited by lack of randomized studies and heterogenous outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies assessing the outcomes of focal therapy on sexual function were not of high quality, used heterogenous outcomes, and had relatively short follow up, highlighting the need for more robustly designed studies using validated patient reported outcome measures  for comparison. However, FT in general resulted in less effect on EF than WG ablation.

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.

Transatlantic Consensus Group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer.

UNLABELLED: What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Active surveillance for prostate cancer is gaining increasing acceptance for low risk prostate cancer. Focal therapy is an emerging tissue preservation strategy that aims for treat only areas of cancer. Early phase trials have shown that side-effects can be significantly reduced using focal therapy. There is significant uncertainty in both active surveillance and focal therapy. This consensus group paper provides a road-map for clinical practice and research for both tissue-preserving strategies in the areas of patient population, tools for risk stratification and cancer localisation, treatment interventions as well as comparators and outcome measures in future comparative trials. OBJECTIVE: To reach consensus on key issues for clinical practice and future research in active surveillance and focal therapy in managing localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A group of expert urologists, oncologists, radiologists, pathologists and computer scientists from North America and Europe met to discuss issues in patient population, interventions, comparators and outcome measures to use in both tissue-preserving strategies of active surveillance and focal therapy. Break-out sessions were formed to provide agreement or highlight areas of disagreement on individual topics which were then collated by a writing group into statements that formed the basis of this report and agreed upon by the whole Transatlantic Consensus Group. RESULTS: The Transatlantic group propose that emerging diagnostic tools such as precision imaging and transperineal prostate mapping biopsy can improve prostate cancer care. These tools should be integrated into prostate cancer management and research so that better risk stratification and more effective treatment allocation can be applied. The group envisaged a process of care in which active surveillance, focal therapy, and radical treatments lie on a continuum of complementary therapies for men with a range of disease grades and burdens, rather than being applied in the mutually exclusive and competitive way they are now. CONCLUSION: The changing landscape of prostate cancer epidemiology requires the medical community to re-evaluate the entire prostate cancer diagnostic and treatment pathway in order to minimize harms resulting from over-diagnosis and over-treatment. Precise risk stratification at every point in this pathway is required alongside paradigm shifts in our thinking about what constitutes cancer in the prostate.

Conceptual basis for focal therapy in prostate cancer.

The proportion of men with low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer is rising with the increasing use of formal and informal prostate-specific antigen screening. The risk-to-benefit ratio of radical therapy is large with many men suffering genitourinary side effects compared with the small degree of cancer control that they derive from surgery or radiotherapy. On the other hand, the current alternative, active surveillance, carries risk of progression as well as some psychological and healthcare burdens. Focal treatment may be an acceptable alternative: in aiming to destroy only the areas of prostate cancer, focal therapy could deliver cancer control while at the same time avoid damage to surrounding structures. This may reduce incontinence, impotence, and rectal toxicity. Improvements in localization of cancer such as template transperineal prostate-mapping biopsies as well as state-of-the-art imaging such as multiparametric MRI and novel ultrasound-based tissue characterization tools have made the delivery of focal therapy possible. Minimally invasive ablative technologies such as cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound, photodynamic therapy, photothermal therapy, or radiofrequency interstitial tumor ablation can precisely treat to within a few millimeters. Early studies evaluating focal therapy have found a lower side-effect profile with acceptable short- to medium-term cancer control rates. If these promising results are confirmed in future prospective trials, focal therapy could start to challenge the current standard of care.