Available evidence on HIFU for focal treatment of prostate cancer: a systematic review

ABSTRACT Purpose: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common oncologic disease among men. Radical treatment with curative intent provides good oncological results for PCa survivors, although definitive therapy is associated with significant number of serious side-effects. In modern-era of medicine tissue-sparing techniques, such as focal HIFU, have been proposed for PCa patients in order to provide cancer control equivalent to the standard-of-care procedures while reducing morbidities and complications. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the available evidence about focal HIFU therapy as a primary treatment for localized PCa. Material and methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature review of focal HIFU therapy in the MEDLINE database (PROSPERO: CRD42021235581). Articles published in the English language between 2010 and 2020 with more than 50 patients were included. Results: Clinically significant in-field recurrence and out-of-field progression were detected to 22% and 29% PCa patients, respectively. Higher ISUP grade group, more positive cores at biopsy and bilateral disease were identified as the main risk factors for disease recurrence. The most common strategy for recurrence management was definitive therapy. Six months after focal HIFU therapy 98% of patients were totally continent and 80% of patients retained sufficient erections for sexual intercourse. The majority of complications presented in the early postoperative period and were classified as low-grade. Conclusions: This review highlights that focal HIFU therapy appears to be a safe procedure, while short-term cancer control rate is encouraging. Though, second-line treatment or active surveillance seems to be necessary in a significant number of patients.

Available evidence on HIFU for focal treatment of prostate cancer: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common oncologic disease among men. Radical treatment with curative intent provides good oncological results for PCa survivors, although definitive therapy is associated with significant number of serious side-effects. In modern-era of medicine tissue-sparing techniques, such as focal HIFU, have been proposed for PCa patients in order to provide cancer control equivalent to the standard-of-care procedures while reducing morbidities and complications. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the available evidence about focal HIFU therapy as a primary treatment for localized PCa. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature review of focal HIFU therapy in the MEDLINE database (PROSPERO: CRD42021235581). Articles published in the English language between 2010 and 2020 with more than 50 patients were included. RESULTS: Clinically significant in-field recurrence and out-of-field progression were detected to 22% and 29% PCa patients, respectively. Higher ISUP grade group, more positive cores at biopsy and bilateral disease were identified as the main risk factors for disease recurrence. The most common strategy for recurrence management was definitive therapy. Six months after focal HIFU therapy 98% of patients were totally continent and 80% of patients retained sufficient erections for sexual intercourse. The majority of complications presented in the early postoperative period and were classified as low-grade. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights that focal HIFU therapy appears to be a safe procedure, while short-term cancer control rate is encouraging. Though, second-line treatment or active surveillance seems to be necessary in a significant number of patients.

Does mpMRI guidance improve HIFU partial gland ablation compared to conventional ultrasound guidance? Early functional outcomes and complications from a single center

ABSTRACT Background Focal therapy (FT) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) treatment is raising interest. New technological mpMRI-US guided FT devices have never been compared with the previous generation of ultrasound-only guided devices. Materials and Methods We retrospectively analyzed prospectively recorded data of men undergoing FT for localized low- or intermediate-risk PCa with US- (Ablatherm®-2009 to 2014) or mpMRI-US (Focal One®-from 2014) guided HIFU. Follow-up visits and data were collected using internationally validated questionnaires at 1, 2, 3, 6 and 12 months. Results We included n=88 US-guided FT HIFU and n=52 mpMRI-US guided FT HIFU respectively. No major baseline differences were present except higher rates of Gleason 3+4 for the mpMRI-US group. No major differences were present in hospital stay (p=0.1), catheterization time (p=0.5) and complications (p=0.2) although these tended to be lower in the mpMRI-US group (6.8% versus 13.2% US FT group). At 3 months mpMRI-US guided HIFU had significantly lower urine leak (5.1% vs. 15.9%, p=0.04) and a lower drop in IIEF scores (2 vs. 4.2, p=0.07). Of those undergoing 12-months control biopsy in the mpMRI-US-guided HIFU group, 26% had residual cancer in the treated lobe. Conclusion HIFU FT guided by MRI-US fusion may allow improved functional outcomes and fewer complications compared to US- guided HIFU FT alone. Further analysis is needed to confirm benefits of mpMRI implementation at a longer follow-up and on a larger cohort of patients.

Does mpMRI guidance improve HIFU partial gland ablation compared to conventional ultrasound guidance? Early functional outcomes and complications from a single center.

BACKGROUND: Focal therapy (FT) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) treatment is raising interest. New technological mpMRI-US guided FT devices have never been compared with the previous generation of ultrasound-only guided devices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed prospectively recorded data of men undergoing FT for localized low- or intermediate-risk PCa with US- (Ablatherm®-2009 to 2014) or mpMRI-US (Focal One®-from 2014) guided HIFU. Follow-up visits and data were collected using internationally validated questionnaires at 1, 2, 3, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: We included n=88 US-guided FT HIFU and n=52 mpMRI-US guided FT HIFU respectively. No major baseline differences were present except higher rates of Gleason 3+4 for the mpMRI-US group. No major differences were present in hospital stay (p=0.1), catheterization time (p=0.5) and complications (p=0.2) although these tended to be lower in the mpMRI-US group (6.8% versus 13.2% US FT group). At 3 months mpMRI-US guided HIFU had significantly lower urine leak (5.1% vs. 15.9%, p=0.04) and a lower drop in IIEF scores (2 vs. 4.2, p=0.07). Of those undergoing 12-months control biopsy in the mpMRI-US-guided HIFU group, 26% had residual cancer in the treated lobe. CONCLUSION: HIFU FT guided by MRI-US fusion may allow improved functional outcomes and fewer complications compared to US- guided HIFU FT alone. Further analysis is needed to confirm benefits of mpMRI implementation at a longer follow-up and on a larger cohort of patients.