Twelve-month prostate volume reduction after MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation of the prostate.

PURPOSE: To quantitatively assess 12-month prostate volume (PV) reduction based on T2-weighted MRI and immediate post-treatment contrast-enhanced MRI non-perfused volume (NPV), and to compare measurements with predictions of acute and delayed ablation volumes based on MR-thermometry (MR-t), in a central radiology review of the Phase I clinical trial of MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation (TULSA) in patients with localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment day MRI and 12-month follow-up MRI and biopsy were available for central radiology review in 29 of 30 patients from the published institutional review board-approved, prospective, multi-centre, single-arm Phase I clinical trial of TULSA. Viable PV at 12 months was measured as the remaining PV on T2-weighted MRI, less 12-month NPV, scaled by the fraction of fibrosis in 12-month biopsy cores. Reduction of viable PV was compared to predictions based on the fraction of the prostate covered by the MR-t derived acute thermal ablation volume (ATAV, 55°C isotherm), delayed thermal ablation volume (DTAV, 240 cumulative equivalent minutes at 43°C thermal dose isocontour) and treatment-day NPV. We also report linear and volumetric comparisons between metrics. RESULTS: After TULSA, the median 12-month reduction in viable PV was 88%. DTAV predicted a reduction of 90%. Treatment day NPV predicted only 53% volume reduction, and underestimated ATAV and DTAV by 36% and 51%. CONCLUSION: Quantitative volumetry of the TULSA phase I MR and biopsy data identifies DTAV (240 CEM43 thermal dose boundary) as a useful predictor of viable prostate tissue reduction at 12 months. Immediate post-treatment NPV underestimates tissue ablation. KEY POINTS: • MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation (TULSA) achieved an 88% reduction of viable prostate tissue volume at 12 months, in excellent agreement with expectation from thermal dose calculations. • Non-perfused volume on immediate post-treatment contrast-enhanced MRI represents only 64% of the acute thermal ablation volume (ATAV), and reports only 60% (53% instead of 88% achieved) of the reduction in viable prostate tissue volume at 12 months. • MR-thermometry-based predictions of 12-month prostate volume reduction based on 240 cumulative equivalent minute thermal dose volume are in excellent agreement with reduction in viable prostate tissue volume measured on pre- and 12-month post-treatment T2w-MRI.

Quality of life and functional outcome after infravesical desobstruction and HIFU treatment for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate quality of life, functional and oncological outcome after infravesical desobstruction and HIFU treatment for localized prostate cancer. METHODS: One hundred thirty-one patients, treated with TURP and HIFU in a single institution were followed up for oncological and functional outcome. Oncological outcome was quantified by biochemical recurrence free survival using the Stuttgart and Phoenix criteria. Quality of life was assessed by usage of standardized QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25 questionnaires. In addition, functional questionnaires such as IPSS and IIEF-5 were used. Complications were assessed by the Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-one patients with a mean age of 72.8 years (SD: 6.0) underwent HIFU for prostate cancer (29.0% low risk, 58.8% intermediate risk, 12.2% high risk). PSA nadir was 0.6 ng/ml (SD: 1.2) after a mean of 4.6 months (SD: 5.7). Biochemical recurrence free survival defined by Stuttgart criteria was 73.7%, 84.4% and 62.5% for low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients after 22.2 months. Complications were grouped according to Clavien-Dindo and occurred in 10.7% (grade II) and 11.5% (grade IIIa) of cases. 35.1% of patients needed further treatment for bladder neck stricture. Regarding incontinence, 14.3%, 2.9% and 0% of patients had de novo urinary incontinence grade I°, II° and III° and 3.8% urge incontinence due to HIFU treatment. Patients were asked for the ability to have intercourse: 15.8%, 58.6% and 66.7% of patients after non-, onesided and bothsided nervesparing procedure were able to obtain sufficient erection for intercourse, respectively. Regarding quality of life, mean global health score according to QLQ-C30 was 69.4%. CONCLUSION: HIFU treatment for localized prostate cancer shows acceptable oncological safety. Quality of life after HIFU is better than in the general population and ranges within those of standard treatment options compared to literature. HIFU seems a safe valuable treatment alternative for patients not suitable for standard treatment.

Improved detection of anterior fibromuscular stroma and transition zone prostate cancer using biparametric and multiparametric MRI with MRI-targeted biopsy and MRI-US fusion guidance.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to analyze the potential of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI/transrectal ultrasound-fusion biopsies to detect and to characterize significant prostate cancer (sPC) in the anterior fibromuscular stroma (AFMS) and in the transition zone (TZ) of the prostate and to assess the accuracy of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and biparametric MRI (bpMRI) (T2w and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)). METHODS: Seven hundred and fifty-five consecutive patients underwent prebiopsy 3 T mpMRI and transperineal biopsy between October 2012 and September 2014. MRI images were analyzed using PIRADS (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System). All patients had systematic biopsies (SBs, median n=24) as reference test and targeted biopsies (TBs) with rigid software registration in case of MRI-suspicious lesions. Detection rates of SBs and TBs were assessed for all PC and sPC patients defined by Gleason score (GS)⩾3+4 and GS⩾4+3. For PC, which were not concordantly detected by TBs and SBs, prostatectomy specimens were assessed. We further compared bpMRI with mpMRI. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-one patients harbored 194 lesions in AFMS and TZ on mpMRI. Patient-based analysis detected no difference in the detection of all PC for SBs vs TBs in the overall cohort, but in the repeat-biopsy population TBs performed significantly better compared with SBs (P=0.004 for GS⩾3+4 and P=0.022 for GS⩾4+3, respectively). Nine GS⩾4+3 sPCs were overlooked by SBs, whereas TBs missed two sPC in men undergoing primary biopsy. The combination of SBs and TBs provided optimal local staging. Non-inferiority analysis showed no relevant difference of bpMRI to mpMRI in sPC detection. CONCLUSIONS: MRI-targeted biopsies detected significantly more anteriorly located sPC compared with SBs in the repeat-biopsy setting. The more cost-efficient bpMRI was statistically not inferior to mpMRI in sPC detection in TZ/AFMS.

Follow-up modalities in focal therapy for prostate cancer: results from a Delphi consensus project.

INTRODUCTION: Focal therapy can offer the middle ground for treatment between active surveillance and radical therapy in patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Factors that prohibit focal therapy from being standard of care are numerous. Several consensus projects have been conducted to position the utilization of imaging and trial design in focal therapy. However, the literature is still scarce on patient follow-up after focal therapy. For these reasons, an international multidisciplinary consensus project was established in order to reach consensus about a uniform follow-up protocol after focal therapy. OBJECTIVE: To standardize patient follow-up after focal therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature study was performed, and a questionnaire was constructed. The questionnaire was sent out to 76 participants (70 % urologists, 28 % radiologists and 2 % biomedical engineers) in three consecutive rounds according to the Delphi method. In each round, the panelists were presented with the results of the previous round. Participants each had the opportunity to adapt, delete or add questions. The topics discussed pertaining to follow-up after focal therapy were as follows: (1) general,(2) biopsies, (3) PSA, (4) digital rectal examination (DRE), (5) imaging, (6) quality of life (QoL) and (7) registration and pooling of data. The project was concluded with a face-to-face meeting in which final conclusions were formulated. RESULTS: The follow-up after focal therapy should be a minimum of 5 years. The following modalities should be included in assessing post-treatment outcomes: multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), biopsies, assessment of erectile function, QoL, urinary symptoms and incontinence. A systematic 12-core TRUS biopsy combined with 4-6 targeted biopsy cores of the treated area and any suspicious lesion(s) should be performed after 1 year, and thereafter only when there is suspicion on imaging. The ideal way to perform targeted biopsies is to use TRUS-MRI fusion technology. PSA should be performed for research purposes, in the first year, every 3 months, and after the first year, every 6 months. mpMRI is the optimal imaging modality for follow-up after focal therapy. On a 1.5T scanner, an endorectal coil is strongly advised by the panel, whereas on a 3T machine, it is optional, however, it will improve image quality. The following sequences should be included: T2WI, DWI including high b values of >1,000 and ADC maps of DWI, DCE and T1WI. Imaging should be performed at 6 months and at 1 year following treatment; after the first year post-treatment, it should be performed every year until 5 years following treatment. All data should ideally be pooled in a common global database. CONCLUSION: Focal therapy is a relatively new form of treatment for prostate cancer. In order to include focal therapy as a standard of care treatment, consistent follow-up is necessary. By implementing the results of this consensus study, focal therapy users will be able to provide important and standardized outcome data.

[Structure of biobanks for urological research]. / Struktur von Biobanken für die urologische Forschung.

Biomedical research plays an important role in the development of novel diagnostic procedures, drugs and treatment strategies with regard to cancerous and chronic inflammatory diseases. Biobanks are essential tools in this process. The complex structures and benefits of biobanks are presented in this article.