MP17-16 URETHRA-SPARING TREATMENT WITH HIGH-INTENSITY FOCUSED ULTRASOUND FOR LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyImaging/Radiology: Uroradiology III1 Apr 2015MP17-16 URETHRA-SPARING TREATMENT WITH HIGH-INTENSITY FOCUSED ULTRASOUND FOR LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER Sunao Shoji, Mayura Nakano, Tetsuro Tomonaga, Hiroshi Fujikawa, Kazuyuki Endo, Akio Hashimoto, Toshiro Terachi, and Toyoaki Uchida Sunao ShojiSunao Shoji More articles by this author , Mayura NakanoMayura Nakano More articles by this author , Tetsuro TomonagaTetsuro Tomonaga More articles by this author , Hiroshi FujikawaHiroshi Fujikawa More articles by this author , Kazuyuki EndoKazuyuki Endo More articles by this author , Akio HashimotoAkio Hashimoto More articles by this author , Toshiro TerachiToshiro Terachi More articles by this author , and Toyoaki UchidaToyoaki Uchida More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.858AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES To evaluate the oncological outcomes and the longitudinal change in quality of life (QOL) of patients treated with urethra-sparing high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), compared with whole-gland HIFU for localized prostate cancer. METHODS Patients receiving urethra-sparing or whole-gland HIFU (Sonablate®) as the primary therapy for localized prostate cancer without transurethral resection of the prostate were included in the study. Patients with negative findings of the transition zone biopsies and magnetic resonance imaging received urethra-sparing HIFU. Oncological and functional outcomes, along with longitudinal changes in QOL were analyzed. RESULTS Comparing the patients treated with urethra-sparing (n=54) (Fig.1a) with those treated with whole-gland HIFU (n=254), there were no significant differences in negative biopsy rates upon follow-up (83% vs. 87%; p=0.4) or biochemical disease-free survival rates (BDFS) (81% vs. 77%; p=0.5) (Fig.1b). In functional outcomes, there were significant differences in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) (11 vs. 14, p=0.022) at 3 months, IPSS QOL (3 vs. 4, p=0.038) at 3 months, maximum urinary flow rate (mL/s) (12.8 vs. 9.4 at 3 months, p=0.014; 13.2 vs. 11.2 at 6 months, p=0.048), and residual urine volume (mL) (32 vs. 58 at 3 months, p<0.0001; 30 vs. 38 at 6 months, p=0.010; at 12 months, p=0.038). In QOL, there were significant differences in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) (90 vs. 80 at 3 months, p=0.020) and FACT-Prostate (P) (36 vs. 30 at 3 months, p=0.030; 37 vs. 32 at 6 months, p=0.044), but no significant difference in International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) -5. In complication rates, there was a significant difference in the rate of urethral stricture at 6 months (5.6% vs. 16% within 3 months, p=0.044; 3.7% vs. 10% from 4 to 6 months, p=0.048), but no significant difference in erectile function at 24 months (63% vs. 65%, p=0.8). CONCLUSIONS There was no significant difference in the oncological outcomes between urethra-sparing and whole-gland HIFU patients in this study. However, the urinary function of patients treated with urethra-sparing HIFU was superior to patients treated with whole gland HIFU within 6 months post-treatment. © 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byGolan R, Bernstein A, McClure T, Sedrakyan A, Patel N, Parekh D, Marks L and Hu J (2017) Partial Gland Treatment of Prostate Cancer Using High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound in the Primary and Salvage Settings: A Systematic ReviewJournal of Urology, VOL. 198, NO. 5, (1000-1009), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2017. Volume 193Issue 4SApril 2015Page: e182 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Sunao Shoji More articles by this author Mayura Nakano More articles by this author Tetsuro Tomonaga More articles by this author Hiroshi Fujikawa More articles by this author Kazuyuki Endo More articles by this author Akio Hashimoto More articles by this author Toshiro Terachi More articles by this author Toyoaki Uchida More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...