You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized: Ablative Therapy1 Apr 2016MP18-14 CAN SMALL LESIONS OF GLEASON 3+4 BE LEFT UNTREATED IN FOCAL THERAPY? ANALYSIS OF RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY SPECIMENS. Kent Kanao, Keishi Kajikawa, Ikuo Kobayashi, Hiroyuki Muramatsu, Shingo Morinaga, Genya Nishikawa, Takahiko Yoshizawa, Yoshiharu Kato, Masahito Watanabe, Kogenta Nakamura, and Makoto Sumitomo Kent KanaoKent Kanao More articles by this author , Keishi KajikawaKeishi Kajikawa More articles by this author , Ikuo KobayashiIkuo Kobayashi More articles by this author , Hiroyuki MuramatsuHiroyuki Muramatsu More articles by this author , Shingo MorinagaShingo Morinaga More articles by this author , Genya NishikawaGenya Nishikawa More articles by this author , Takahiko YoshizawaTakahiko Yoshizawa More articles by this author , Yoshiharu KatoYoshiharu Kato More articles by this author , Masahito WatanabeMasahito Watanabe More articles by this author , Kogenta NakamuraKogenta Nakamura More articles by this author , and Makoto SumitomoMakoto Sumitomo More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.2715AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Focal therapy as an emerging treatment modality for localized prostate cancer has gained interest in recent years. A focal therapy consensus meeting was held in London in June 2013 and many statements regarding eligibility for focal therapy had reached consensus. The panel agreed that it was acceptable not to treat lesions of Gleason score 3 + 3 up to a maximum cancer core length of 5 mm. However, the panel did not reach consensus on whether lesions of Gleason score 3 + 4 with a maximum cancer core length of 3 mm could be left untreated. The purpose of this study is to assess the size, Gleason score, extra prostatic extension (EPE), and occupied regions of all tumor foci in radical prostatectomy specimens and investigate whether small lesions of Gleason 3+4 could be left untreated in focal therapy. METHODS A total of 104 radical prostatectomy specimens were retrospectively analyzed. All tumor foci in each prostate were outlined on pathology slides, digitally scanned and exported to 3D slicer software (www.slicer.org) to reconstruct 3D prostate cancer models. All tumor foci were individually identified by the software. The region occupied by each tumor focus was individually determined. Gleason score and pathological stage were also individually determined. Volumes of all tumor foci were calculated using the program in the software. When multifocal disease was observed, index lesion was defined as largest tumor focus without considering its Gleason score. RESULTS A total of 441 tumor foci were detected in 104 specimens. Overall, 71 foci were greater than 0.5 cc. The median tumor volume was 0.035 cc (range 1.2 x 10-4 to 7.2). When region-targeted therapy is considered for tumor foci with volume greater than 0.5cc, the target region was set in quarter for 9 (14.5%), unilateral for 18 (29%), anterior bilateral for 11 (17.7%), posterior bilateral for 3 (4.8%), hockey stick for 13 (21%), whole prostate for 8 (12.9%) prostates, respectively. According to the consensus statements, 42 prostates with index lesion occupied more than half prostate and/or Gleason score 8 or higher and/or EPE were excluded from eligibility for focal therapy. In the remaining 62 prostates with 262 foci, there were 50 lesions with a volume of <0.5ml and Gleason score 3+4 besides index lesions. If lesions with a volume of <0.5ml and Gleason 3+4 could not be left in focal therapy, the 50 lesions should be treated in addition to index lesion. This may be contradictory to “index lesion theory” and the concept of focal therapy. CONCLUSIONS This study shows that there are many small lesions with Gleason 3+4 besides index lesions in patients with prostate cancer eligible for focal therapy. To treat those lesions is contradictory to the concept of focal therapy, and therefore it may be reasonable to left them untreated. © 2016FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 195Issue 4SApril 2016Page: e198 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016MetricsAuthor Information Kent Kanao More articles by this author Keishi Kajikawa More articles by this author Ikuo Kobayashi More articles by this author Hiroyuki Muramatsu More articles by this author Shingo Morinaga More articles by this author Genya Nishikawa More articles by this author Takahiko Yoshizawa More articles by this author Yoshiharu Kato More articles by this author Masahito Watanabe More articles by this author Kogenta Nakamura More articles by this author Makoto Sumitomo More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...