The Role of Multiparametric MRI and MRI-targeted Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer: An Analysis from the FORECAST Trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate MRI and MRI-targeted biopsies for detecting intraprostatic cancer recurrence and planning for salvage focal ablation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: FOcal RECurrent Assessment and Salvage Treatment (FORECAST; NCT01883128) was a prospective cohort diagnostic study that recruited 181 patients with suspected radiorecurrence at six UK centres (2014 to 2018); 144 were included here. INTERVENTION: All patients underwent MRI with 5 mm transperineal template mapping biopsies; 84 had additional MRI-targeted biopsies. MRI scans with Likert scores of 3 to 5 were deemed suspicious. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: First, the diagnostic accuracy of MRI was calculated. Second, the pathological characteristics of MRI-detected and MRI-undetected tumours were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and chi-square test for trend. Third, four biopsy strategies involving an MRI-targeted biopsy alone and with systematic biopsies of one to two other quadrants were studied. Fisher's exact test was used to compare MRI-targeted biopsy alone with the best other strategy for the number of patients with missed cancer and the number of patients with cancer harbouring additional tumours in unsampled quadrants. Analyses focused primarily on detecting cancer of any grade or length. Last, eligibility for focal therapy was evaluated for men with localised (≤T3bN0M0) radiorecurrent disease. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 144 patients, 111 (77%) had cancer detected on biopsy. MRI sensitivity and specificity at the patient level were 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92 to 0.99) and 0.21 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.35), respectively. At the prostate quadrant level, 258/576 (45%) quadrants had cancer detected on biopsy. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.66 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.73) and 0.54 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.62), respectively. At the quadrant level, compared with MRI-undetected tumours, MRI-detected tumours had longer maximum cancer core length (median difference 3 mm [7 vs 4 mm]; 95% CI 1 to 4 mm, p < 0.001) and a higher grade group (p = 0.002). Of the 84 men who also underwent an MRI-targeted biopsy, 73 (87%) had recurrent cancer diagnosed. Performing an MRI-targeted biopsy alone missed cancer in 5/73 patients (7%; 95% CI 3 to 15%); with additional systematic sampling of the other ipsilateral and contralateral posterior quadrants (strategy 4), 2/73 patients (3%; 95% CI 0 to 10%) would have had cancer missed (difference 4%; 95% CI -3 to 11%, p = 0.4). If an MRI-targeted biopsy alone was performed, 43/73 (59%; 95% CI 47 to 69%) patients with cancer would have harboured undetected additional tumours in unsampled quadrants. This reduced but only to 7/73 patients (10%; 95% CI 4 to 19%) with strategy 4 (difference 49%; 95% CI 36 to 62%, p < 0.0001). Of 73 patients, 43 (59%; 95% CI 47 to 69%) had localised radiorecurrent cancer suitable for a form of focal ablation. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy, MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy, with or without perilesional sampling, will diagnose cancer in the majority where present. MRI-undetected cancers, defined as Likert scores of 1 to 2, were found to be smaller and of lower grade. However, if salvage focal ablation is planned, an MRI-targeted biopsy alone is insufficient for prostate mapping; approximately three of five patients with recurrent cancer found on an MRI-targeted biopsy alone harboured further tumours in unsampled quadrants. Systematic sampling of the whole gland should be considered in addition to an MRI-targeted biopsy to capture both MRI-detected and MRI-undetected disease. PATIENT SUMMARY: After radiotherapy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is accurate for detecting recurrent prostate cancer, with missed cancer being smaller and of lower grade. Targeting a biopsy to suspicious areas on MRI results in a diagnosis of cancer in most patients. However, for every five men who have recurrent cancer, this targeted approach would miss cancers elsewhere in the prostate in three of these men. If further focal treatment of the prostate is planned, random biopsies covering the whole prostate in addition to targeted biopsies should be considered so that tumours are not missed.

Focal therapy versus radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy as primary treatment options for non-metastatic prostate cancer: results of a cost-effectiveness analysis.

AIMS: Focal therapy treats individual areas of tumour in non-metastatic prostate cancer in patients unsuitable for active surveillance. The aim of this work was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of focal therapy versus prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov cohort health state transition model with four health states (stable disease, local recurrence, metastatic disease and death) was created, evaluating costs and utilities over a 10-year time horizon for patients diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer. National Health Service (NHS) for England perspective was used, based on direct healthcare costs. Clinical transition probabilities were derived from prostate cancer registries in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, EBRT and focal therapy using cryotherapy (Boston Scientific) or high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) (Sonablate). Propensity score matching was used to ensure that at-risk populations were comparable. Variables included age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group, maximum cancer core length (mm), T-stage and year of treatment. RESULTS: Focal therapy was associated with a lower overall cost and higher quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains than either prostatectomy or EBRT, dominating both treatment strategies. Positive incremental net monetary benefit (NMB) values confirm focal therapy as cost-effective versus the alternatives at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of £30,000/QALY. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses revealed consistent results. LIMITATIONS: Data used to calculate the transition probabilities were derived from a limited number of hospitals meaning that other potential treatment options were excluded. Limited data were available on later outcomes and none on quality of life data, therefore, literature-based estimates were used. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness modelling demonstrates use of focal therapy (cryotherapy or HIFU) is associated with greater QALY gains at a lower overall cost than either radical prostatectomy or EBRT, representing good value for money in the NHS.

Focal therapy can be used for the primary treatment of individual areas of cancer in those patients with prostate cancer whose disease has not spread (localized or non-metastatic prostate cancer) and whose disease is unsuitable for active monitoring. Focal therapy in these patients results in similar control of the cancer to more invasive therapies, such as surgical removal of the prostate and radiotherapy, with the benefit of fewer sexual, urinary and rectal side effects. This work considered whether using focal therapy (either freezing the cancer cells using cryotherapy or using high-intensity focused ultrasound [HIFU] to destroy cancer cells) was good value for money in the National Health Service (NHS) compared with surgery or radiotherapy. An economic model was developed which considered the relative impact of treatment with focal therapies, surgery or radiotherapy within the NHS in England. Previously collected information from people undergoing treatment for their prostate cancer, together with published literature and clinical opinion, was used within the model to predict the treatment pathway, costs incurred and the results of treatment in terms of patient benefits (effectiveness and quality of life). The model showed that focal therapy using either cryotherapy or HIFU was associated with a lower overall cost and higher patient benefit than either surgery or radiotherapy, indicating that focal therapy represents good value for money in the NHS.

External validation of a risk model predicting failure of salvage focal ablation for prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To externally validate a published model predicting failure within 2 years after salvage focal ablation in men with localised radiorecurrent prostate cancer using a prospective, UK multicentre dataset. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with biopsy-confirmed ≤T3bN0M0 cancer after previous external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy were included from the FOcal RECurrent Assessment and Salvage Treatment (FORECAST) trial (NCT01883128; 2014-2018; six centres), and from the high-intensity focussed ultrasound (HIFU) Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment (HEAT) and International Cryotherapy Evaluation (ICE) UK-based registries (2006-2022; nine centres). Eligible patients underwent either salvage focal HIFU or cryotherapy, with the choice based predominantly on anatomical factors. Per the original multivariable Cox regression model, the predicted outcome was a composite failure outcome. Model performance was assessed at 2 years post-salvage with discrimination (concordance index [C-index]), calibration (calibration curve and slope), and decision curve analysis. For the latter, two clinically-reasonable risk threshold ranges of 0.14-0.52 and 0.26-0.36 were considered, corresponding to previously published pooled 2-year recurrence-free survival rates for salvage local treatments. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients were included, of whom 84/168 (50%) experienced the primary outcome in all follow-ups, and 72/168 (43%) within 2 years. The C-index was 0.65 (95% confidence interval 0.58-0.71). On graphical inspection, there was close agreement between predicted and observed failure. The calibration slope was 1.01. In decision curve analysis, there was incremental net benefit vs a 'treat all' strategy at risk thresholds of ≥0.23. The net benefit was therefore higher across the majority of the 0.14-0.52 risk threshold range, and all of the 0.26-0.36 range. CONCLUSION: In external validation using prospective, multicentre data, this model demonstrated modest discrimination but good calibration and clinical utility for predicting failure of salvage focal ablation within 2 years. This model could be reasonably used to improve selection of appropriate treatment candidates for salvage focal ablation, and its use should be considered when discussing salvage options with patients. Further validation in larger, international cohorts with longer follow-up is recommended.

Evaluation of Outcomes Following Focal Ablative Therapy for Treatment of Localized Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients >70 Years: A Multi-institute, Multi-energy 15-Year Experience.

PURPOSE: In older patients who do not wish to undergo watchful waiting, focal therapy could be an alternative to the more morbid radical treatment. We evaluated the role of focal therapy in patients 70 years and older as an alternative management modality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 649 patients across 11 UK sites receiving focal high-intensity focused ultrasound or cryotherapy between June 2006 and July 2020 reported within the UK-based HEAT (HIFU Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment) and ICE (International Cryotherapy Evaluation) registries were evaluated. Primary outcome was failure-free survival, defined by need for more than 1 focal reablation, progression to radical treatment, development of metastases, need for systemic treatment, or prostate cancer-specific death. This was compared to the failure-free survival in patients undergoing radical treatment via a propensity score weighted analysis. RESULTS: Median age was 74 years (IQR: 72, 77) and median follow-up 24 months (IQR: 12, 41). Sixty percent had intermediate-risk disease and 35% high-risk disease. A total of 113 patients (17%) required further treatment. Sixteen had radical treatment and 44 required systemic treatment. Failure-free survival was 82% (95% CI: 76%-87%) at 5 years. Comparing patients who had radical therapy to those who had focal therapy, 5-year failure-free survival was 96% (95% CI: 93%-100%) and 82% (95% CI: 75%-91%) respectively (P < .001). Ninety-three percent of those in the radical treatment arm had received radiotherapy as their primary treatment with its associated use of androgen deprivation therapy, thereby leading to potential overestimation of treatment success in the radical treatment arm, especially given the similar metastases-free and overall survival rates seen. CONCLUSIONS: We propose focal therapy to be an effective management option for the older or comorbid patient who is unsuitable for or not willing to undergo radical treatment.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Targeted Biopsies Compared to Transperineal Mapping Biopsies Before Focal Ablation in Localised and Metastatic Recurrent Prostate Cancer After Radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy occurs in one in five patients. The efficacy of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in recurrent cancer has not been established. Furthermore, high-quality data on new minimally invasive salvage focal ablative treatments are needed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of prostate MRI in detection of prostate cancer recurring after radiotherapy and the role of salvage focal ablation in treating recurrent disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The FORECAST trial was both a paired-cohort diagnostic study evaluating prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and MRI-targeted biopsies in the detection of recurrent cancer and a cohort study evaluating focal ablation at six UK centres. A total of 181 patients were recruited, with 155 included in the MRI analysis and 93 in the focal ablation analysis. INTERVENTION: Patients underwent choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography and a bone scan, followed by prostate mpMRI and MRI-targeted and transperineal template-mapping (TTPM) biopsies. MRI was reported blind to other tests. Those eligible underwent subsequent focal ablation. An amendment in December 2014 permitted focal ablation in patients with metastases. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary outcomes were the sensitivity of MRI and MRI-targeted biopsies for cancer detection, and urinary incontinence after focal ablation. A key secondary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Staging whole-body imaging revealed localised cancer in 128 patients (71%), with involvement of pelvic nodes only in 13 (7%) and metastases in 38 (21%). The sensitivity of MRI-targeted biopsy was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] 83-97%). The specificity and positive and negative predictive values were 75% (95% CI 45-92%), 94% (95% CI 86-98%), and 65% (95% CI 38-86%), respectively. Four cancer (6%) were missed by TTPM biopsy and six (8%) were missed by MRI-targeted biopsy. The overall MRI sensitivity for detection of any cancer was 94% (95% CI 88-98%). The specificity and positive and negative predictive values were 18% (95% CI 7-35%), 80% (95% CI 73-87%), and 46% (95% CI 19-75%), respectively. Among 93 patients undergoing focal ablation, urinary incontinence occurred in 15 (16%) and five (5%) had a grade ≥3 adverse event, with no rectal injuries. Median follow-up was 27 mo (interquartile range 18-36); overall PFS was 66% (interquartile range 54-75%) at 24 mo. CONCLUSIONS: Patients should undergo prostate MRI with both systematic and targeted biopsies to optimise cancer detection. Focal ablation for areas of intraprostatic recurrence preserves continence in the majority, with good early cancer control. PATIENT SUMMARY: We investigated the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the prostate and MRI-targeted biopsies in outcomes after cancer-targeted high-intensity ultrasound or cryotherapy in patients with recurrent cancer after radiotherapy. Our findings show that these patients should undergo prostate MRI with both systematic and targeted biopsies and then ablative treatment focused on areas of recurrent cancer to preserve their quality of life. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01883128.

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

Assessment of Return to Baseline Urinary and Sexual Function Following Primary Focal Cryotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The oncological outcomes in men with clinically significant prostate cancer following focal cryotherapy are promising, although functional outcomes are under-reported. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of focal cryotherapy on urinary and sexual function, specifically assessing return to baseline function. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Between October 2013 and November 2016, 58 of 122 men who underwent focal cryotherapy for predominantly anterior clinically significant localised prostate cancer within a prospective registry returned patient-reported outcome measure questionnaires, which included International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-15) questionnaires. INTERVENTION: Standard cryotherapy procedure using either the SeedNet or the Visual-ICE cryotherapy system. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary outcome was return to baseline function of IPSS score and IIEF erectile function (EF) subdomain. Cumulative incidence and Cox-regression analyses were performed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Probability of returning to baseline IPSS function was 78% at 12 mo and 87% at both 18 and 24 mo, with recovery seen up to 18 mo. For IIEF (EF domain), the probability of returning to baseline function was 85% at 12 mo and 89% at both 18 and 24 mo, with recovery seen up to 18 mo. Only the preoperative IIEF-EF score was associated with a poor outcome (hazard ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.93-0.999, p = 0.04). The main limitation was that only half of the patients returned their questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: In men undergoing primary focal cryotherapy, there is a high degree of preservation of urinary and erectile function with return to baseline function occurring from 3 mo and continuing up to 18 mo after focal cryotherapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: In men who underwent focal cryotherapy for prostate cancer, approximately nine in 10 returned to their baseline urinary and sexual function. Keeping in mind that level 1 evidence and long-term data are still needed, in men who wish to preserve urinary and sexual function, focal cryotherapy may be considered an alternative treatment option to radical therapy.

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.

MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without targeted biopsy, is an alternative to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy for prostate-cancer detection in men with a raised prostate-specific antigen level who have not undergone biopsy. However, comparative evidence is limited. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, we assigned men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously to undergo MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, or standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. Men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group underwent a targeted biopsy (without standard biopsy cores) if the MRI was suggestive of prostate cancer; men whose MRI results were not suggestive of prostate cancer were not offered biopsy. Standard biopsy was a 10-to-12-core, transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. The primary outcome was the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically significant cancer. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer. RESULTS: A total of 500 men underwent randomization. In the MRI-targeted biopsy group, 71 of 252 men (28%) had MRI results that were not suggestive of prostate cancer, so they did not undergo biopsy. Clinically significant cancer was detected in 95 men (38%) in the MRI-targeted biopsy group, as compared with 64 of 248 (26%) in the standard-biopsy group (adjusted difference, 12 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4 to 20; P=0.005). MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, was noninferior to standard biopsy, and the 95% confidence interval indicated the superiority of this strategy over standard biopsy. Fewer men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group than in the standard-biopsy group received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer (adjusted difference, -13 percentage points; 95% CI, -19 to -7; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of risk assessment with MRI before biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy was superior to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in men at clinical risk for prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and the European Association of Urology Research Foundation; PRECISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02380027 .).

Anejaculation as an atypical presentation of prostate cancer: a case report.

Anejaculation may occur as a result of neurological disease, iatrogenic injury or be drug induced. We report a case of a 66 year old man who presented with anejaculation following an emergency abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Due to an elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA) level, the patient underwent a prostate biopsy and was diagnosed with a prostate adenocarcinoma. This was effectively managed using active surveillance, a treatment modality that aims to select only those patients with significant cancer for radical treatment. Despite the possible cause of anejaculation to be iatrogenic, the reader should be aware that prostate cancer may co-exist in, or cause any disorder of the lower urinary tract.

Effect of the rate of delivery of lignocaine gel on patient discomfort perception prior to performing flexible cystoscopy.

Flexible cystoscopy is commonly performed under local anaesthesia. Instillation of lignocaine gel is commonly associated with urethral discomfort, which in some cases results in fierce opposition to further flexible cystoscopy under local anaesthesia. Although studies have demonstrated that the temperature of lignocaine can influence the level of discomfort experienced, to date no study has investigated the influence of the rate of lignocaine delivery on perceived discomfort. We therefore performed a prospective, randomised study to investigate this in patients undergoing flexible cystoscopy. One hundred consenting men were randomised to receive 11 ml of 2% lignocaine hydrochloride gel over either 2 or 10 s. The groups were well matched for age. After instillation of the gel, the patients were immediately asked to score their discomfort using a visual analogue scale. The discomfort experienced by patients that received the gel over 10 s was significantly (p < 0.05; Student's t test) less than those that received it over 2 s. This was irrelevant of the age of the patient and the number of previous cystoscopies performed. We have demonstrated that slow administration results in decreased discomfort. This may, in turn, reduce the need to resort to general anaesthesia, which is associated with increased morbidity and cost.