Patient Preferences for Benefit and Risk Associated With High Intensity Focused Ultrasound for the Ablation of Prostate Tissue in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Food and Drug Administration must make decisions about emerging high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) devices that may lack relevant clinical oncologic data but present with known side effects. This study aims to capture patients' perspective by quantifying their preferences regarding the available benefit and important side effects associated with HIFU for localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preferences for HIFU outcomes were examined using a discrete choice experiment survey. Participants were asked to choose a preferred treatment option in 9 choice questions. Each included a pair of hypothetical treatment profiles that have similar attributes/outcomes with varying levels. Outcomes included prostate biopsy outcome and treatment-related risks of erectile dysfunction (ED) and urinary incontinence (UI). We calculated the maximum risk of side effect patients were willing to tolerate in exchange for increased benefit. Preferences were further explored via clinical and demographic data. RESULTS: About 223 subjects with a mean age of 64.8 years completed the survey. Respondents were willing to accept a 1.51%-point increase in new ED risk for a 1%-point increase in favorable biopsy outcome. They were also willing to accept a 0.93%-point increase in new UI risk for a 1%-point increase in biopsy outcome. Subjects who perceived their cancer to be more aggressive had higher risk tolerance for UI. Younger men were willing to tolerate less ED risk than older men. Respondents with greater than college level of education had a lower risk tolerance for ED or UI. CONCLUSIONS: Results may inform development and regulatory evaluation for future HIFU ablation devices by providing supplemental information from the patient perspective.

SPARED Collaboration: Patient Selection for Partial Gland Ablation in Men with Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The SPARED CRN (Study of Prostate Ablation Related Energy Devices Coordinated Registry Network) is a private-public partnership between academic and community urologists, the FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration), the Medical Device Epidemiology Network and device manufacturers to examine the safety and effectiveness of technologies for partial gland ablation in men with localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We report on a recent workshop at the FDA with thought leaders to discuss a critical framework for partial gland ablation, focusing on patient selection, surgical planning, followup, study design and appropriate comparators in terms of adverse events and cancer control outcomes. We summarize salient points from experts in urology, oncology and epidemiology that were presented and discussed in an open forum. RESULTS: Given the challenges in achieving patient and physician equipoise to perform a randomized trial, as well as an inherent paradigm shift when comparing partial gland ablation (inability to assess prostate specific antigen recurrence) to whole gland treatments, the group focused on objective performance criteria and goals as a platform to guide the creation of single arm studies in the SPARED CRN. CONCLUSIONS: This summit lays the foundation for prospective, multi-center data collection and evaluation of novel medical devices and drug/device combinations for partial gland ablation.

Prostate Ablation Using High Intensity Focused Ultrasound: A Literature Review of the Potential Role for Patient Preference Information.

PURPOSE: The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) recently allowed the marketing of 2 high intensity focused ultrasound devices for prostate tissue ablation indications after previous rejections for a prostate cancer indication due to insufficient data on clinical effectiveness or direct patient benefit. We reviewed the safety and effectiveness of high intensity focused ultrasound and knowledge regarding patient preferences, such as tolerance for adverse events associated with high intensity focused ultrasound ablation of tissue, in men with prostate cancer. This may inform decision making for device developers and the FDA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed® and gray literature, including FDA reports for relevant data on 1) the safety and effectiveness of primary and salvage high intensity focused ultrasound of localized prostate cancer in studies performed in or outside the United States and 2) patient preference information on high intensity focused ultrasound related safety and effectiveness outcomes. RESULTS: We found no high intensity focused ultrasound effectiveness data relevant to clinical decision making, such as overall or prostate cancer specific survival, in the United States. Long-term effectiveness data from outside the United States were sparse and outcomes varied. We also found no patient preference data on high intensity focused ultrasound treatment in men with prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of long-term high intensity focused ultrasound oncological data in an American population has brought new challenges to prostate cancer stakeholders, including clinicians, patients and the FDA. Patient preference information from future patient studies on high intensity focused ultrasound could provide additional information to patients, clinicians, and current and prospective device developers. In addition, it can be used by regulators in benefit-risk evaluations of this class of treatment devices.

Development of a Nationally Representative Coordinated Registry Network for Prostate Ablation Technologies.

PURPOSE: The accumulation of data through a prospective, multicenter coordinated registry network is a practical way to gather real world evidence on the performance of novel prostate ablation technologies. Urological oncologists, targeted biopsy experts, industry representatives and representatives of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) convened to discuss the role, feasibility and important data elements of a coordinated registry network to assess new and existing prostate ablation technologies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multiround Delphi consensus approach was performed which included the opinion of 15 expert urologists, representatives of the FDA and leadership from high intensity focused ultrasound device manufacturers. Stakeholders provided input in 3 consecutive rounds with conference calls following each round to obtain consensus on remaining items. Participants agreed that these elements initially developed for high intensity focused ultrasound are compatible with other prostate ablation technologies. Coordinated registry network elements were reviewed and supplemented with data elements from the FDA common study metrics. RESULTS: The working group reached consensus on capturing specific patient demographics, treatment details, oncologic outcomes, functional outcomes and complications. Validated health related quality of life questionnaires were selected to capture patient reported outcomes, including the IIEF-5 (International Index of Erectile Function-5), the I-PSS (International Prostate Symptom Score), the EPIC-26 (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26) and the MSHQ-EjD (Male Sexual Health Questionnaire for Ejaculatory Dysfunction). Group consensus was to obtain followup multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and prostate biopsy approximately 12 months after ablation with additional imaging or biopsy performed as clinically indicated. CONCLUSIONS: A national prostate ablation coordinated registry network brings forth vital practice pattern and outcomes data for this emerging treatment paradigm in the United States. Our multiple stakeholder consensus identifies critical elements to evaluate new and existing energy modalities and devices.