OP3-12 RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY VERSUS HIGH INTENSITY FOCUSED ULTRASOUND FOR LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER: A MATCHED PAIR COMPARISON

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyOutstanding Posters: Oncology1 Apr 2014OP3-12 RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY VERSUS HIGH INTENSITY FOCUSED ULTRASOUND FOR LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER: A MATCHED PAIR COMPARISON Sebastien Crouzet, Marc Colombel, Olivier Rouviere, Jean-Yves Chapelon, Muriel Rabilloud, Florence Mege-Lechevalier, Helene Tonoli Catez, Xavier Martin, and Albert Gelet Sebastien CrouzetSebastien Crouzet More articles by this author , Marc ColombelMarc Colombel More articles by this author , Olivier RouviereOlivier Rouviere More articles by this author , Jean-Yves ChapelonJean-Yves Chapelon More articles by this author , Muriel RabilloudMuriel Rabilloud More articles by this author , Florence Mege-LechevalierFlorence Mege-Lechevalier More articles by this author , Helene Tonoli CatezHelene Tonoli Catez More articles by this author , Xavier MartinXavier Martin More articles by this author , and Albert GeletAlbert Gelet More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.2333AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Radical prostatectomy is the gold standard treatment for localized prostate cancer. HIFU is a treatment option with promising outcomes. No randomized study is available to compare those techniques. The goal of the study was to evaluate the oncologic outcome of patients treated with HIFU and radical prostatectomy by using a matched pair analysis to compare the 2 groups. METHODS A total of 710 patients treated between 2000 and 2005 were prospectively followed in our institutional database and matched to a 1:1 basis following know prognostic variables: prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, Gleason score, and clinical stage. After matching, 588 patients (294 in each group) were further analysed. The starts of salvage external beam radiotherapy (SEBRT) or definitive palliative androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were primary endpoints. Other endpoints were overall, cancer specific and metastasis free survival rates: The survival rates were calculated with Kaplan-Meier estimate. RESULTS The seven years SEBRT free survival rate was significantly lower after HIFU than after RP (62% versus 78%, p=0.001). The palliative androgen deprivation free rate at nine years was not significantly different between HIFU and RP (86% versus 87%, p=0.271). At nine years the overall, cancer specific and metastasis free survival rates were similar: 89%, 97%, 94 % and 89%, 97% and 97% for HIFU and RP respectively (p=0.186, 0.312, 0.107). CONCLUSIONS Matched pair comparison of HIFU and RP has shown a higher rate of SEBRT for HIFU. At 9 years, the rate of patients who need palliative ADT, the overall cancer specific and metastasis free survival rates were not significantly different between HIFU and RP. © 2014FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 191Issue 4SApril 2014Page: e855 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2014MetricsAuthor Information Sebastien Crouzet More articles by this author Marc Colombel More articles by this author Olivier Rouviere More articles by this author Jean-Yves Chapelon More articles by this author Muriel Rabilloud More articles by this author Florence Mege-Lechevalier More articles by this author Helene Tonoli Catez More articles by this author Xavier Martin More articles by this author Albert Gelet More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...