Focal Therapy For Prostate Cancer Research Articles

MRI after focal therapy for prostate cancer: what radiologists must know?

Focal therapy (FT) is a rapidly growing field aiming to minimize the side effects of whole gland treatments in patients with localized prostate cancer and multiparametric MRI plays an important role in patient selection, treatment planning, and post-treatment monitoring. This article reviews the currently available prostate cancer FT techniques, discusses the key imaging findings that affect patient selection and treatment planning, and illustrates the spectrum of expected and abnormal post-treatment MRI findings.

Current role of focal therapy in prostate cancer.

Thanks to the improved accuracy of multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) to detect and localize the dominant index lesion on prostate cancer (PCa), the concept of minimally invasive focal treatments (FT) has gained popularity. Nevertheless, although high-quality evidence that FT has favorable functional outcomes, definitive proof of its oncological effectiveness compared to standard treatments remains underreported. This study aims to explore the efficacy, safety, oncologic and functional outcomes of different type of FT for PCa. A non-systematic literature review was conducted by searching on PubMed "prostate cancer" AND "focal treatment" OR "HIFU" OR "irreversible electroporation" OR "cryoablation" OR "focal laser ablation." Overall, 22 articles published in English literature from 2018 to 2023 describing FT techniques for PCa were included. Related to the field ablated, focal therapies include hemiablation (half gland), focal ablation (zonal-base) or targeted therapy (lesion-based). FT modalities can be categorized in thermal and non-thermal energy: thermal energy techniques include high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), cryotherapy, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and focal laser ablation (FLA). Focal brachytherapy, irreversible electroporation (IRE), and vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy (VTP) are classified as non-thermal ablation. Each focal ablative treatments could be promising alternative to conventional radical therapies to treat PCa in term of mid-term oncologic and functional outcomes, however, limited data are available in comparison with standardized radical treatments. HIFU and Cryo are the most studied techniques and seem to be superior to radical treatments in term of functional outcomes despite associated with higher recurrence and retreatment rate. Current evidences of oncologic and functional outcomes of FT are based mainly on retrospective, non-comparative and single center studies. Thus, none of the focal therapies available should be considered safe alternative to standardized treatments in routine practice and should be offered only for well selected PCa patients with low or at least favorable-intermediate risk disease, unfit for radical options.

Real-World Safety of Prostate Cancer Focal Therapy: MAUDE Database Analysis.

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the real-world safety profile of medical devices used in focal prostate cancer treatment utilizing the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database. Methods: The MAUDE database was searched for reports on high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), cryoablation, laser ablation, and irreversible electroporation (IRE) devices used in prostate cancer treatment from 1993 to 2023. Adverse events were identified and categorized. Results: We identified 175 reports for HIFU, 1362 for cryoablation, 615 for laser ablation, and 135 for IRE devices, with 28, 284, 126, and 2 respective reports, directly related to prostate cancer treatment. The aggregated data revealed the majority of complications were minor, with 82.5% (n = 363 out of 440 total complications) classified as Clavien-Dindo grade 1 or 2. Common minor complications included erectile dysfunction and urinary retention. Severe complications such as rectal fistulas were noted in HIFU and IRE treatments, along with singular mortality due to pulmonary embolism in cryoablation. Conclusions: Our analyses from MAUDE reveal that devices used in focal therapy for prostate cancer are predominantly associated with minor complications, underscoring their overall real-world safety profile. However, the occurrence of severe adverse events emphasizes the critical importance of rigorous patient selection and meticulous procedural planning. These findings provide valuable insights into the safety profile of focal therapy devices and contribute to the growing body of evidence on their use in prostate cancer treatment.

Identifying the best candidate for focal therapy: a comprehensive review.

Despite the evidence supporting the use of focal therapy (FT) in patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa), considerable variability exists in the patient selection criteria across current studies. This study aims to review the most recent evidence concerning the optimal approach to patient selection for FT in PCa. PubMed database was systematically queried for studies reporting patient selection criteria in FT for PCa before December 31, 2023. After excluding non-relevant articles and a quality assessment, data were extracted, and results were described qualitatively. There is no level I evidence regarding the best patient selection approach for FT in patients with PCa. Current international multidisciplinary consensus statements recommend multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) followed by MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy for all candidates. FT may be considered in clinically localized, intermediate risk (Gleason 3 + 4 and 4 + 3), and preferably unifocal disease. Patients should have an acceptable life expectancy. Those with prostate volume >50 ml and erectile dysfunction should not be excluded from FT. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of < 20 (ideally < 10) ng/mL is recommended. However, the utility of other molecular and genomic biomarkers in patient selection for FT remains unknown. FT may be considered in well-selected patients with localized PCa. This review provides a comprehensive insight regarding the optimal approach for patient selection in FT.

Surveillance after Focal Therapy - a Comprehensive Review.

to date, no standardized, evidence-based follow-up schemes exist for the monitoring of patients who underwent focal therapy (FT) and expert centers rely mainly on their own experience and/or institutional protocols. We aimed to perform a comprehensive review of the most advantageous follow-up strategies and their rationale after FT for prostate cancer (PCa). a narrative review of the literature was conducted to investigate different follow-up protocols of FT for PCa. Outcomes of interest were post-ablation oncological and functional outcomes and complications. Oncological success after FT was generally defined as the biopsy-confirmed absence of clinically significant PCa in the treated zone. De novo PCa in the untreated area usually reflects an inaccurate patient selection and should be treated as primary PCa. During follow-up, oncological outcomes should be evaluated with periodic PSA, multiparametric MRI and prostate biopsy. The use of PSA derivatives and new biomarkers is still controversial and therefore not recommended. The first MRI after FT should be performed between 6-12 months to avoid ablation-related artifacts and diagnostic delay in case of FT failure. Other imaging modalities, such as PSMA PET/CT scan, are promising but still need to be validated in the post-FT setting. A 12-month "for-protocol" prostate biopsy, including targeted and systematic biopsy, was generally considered the preferred biopsy method to rule out tumor persistence/recurrence. Subsequent mpMRIs and biopsies should follow a risk-adapted approach depending on the clinical scenario. Functional outcomes should be periodically assessed using validated questionnaires within the first year, when typically recover to a new baseline. Complications, despite uncommon, should be strictly monitored mainly in the first month. FT follow-up is a multifaceted process involving clinical, radiological, and histological assessment. Studies evaluating the impact of different follow-up strategies and ideal timings are needed to produce standardized protocols following FT.

Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer in Ireland; Addressing the National Objective and Subjective Needs

Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer in Ireland; Addressing the National Objective and Subjective Needs

Focal therapy for prostate cancer: Challenges with patient selection, treatment modalities, and follow-up

Prostate cancer (PCa) remains the most common malignancy among men. Historically, the standard treatments for localized, clinically significant PCa have been radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. However, the need to achieve optimal oncological outcomes while maintaining quality of life has led to the development of focal therapy (FT) as a novel treatment modality. At present, FT is performed using different types of energy sources: (i) cryotherapy, (ii) irreversible electroporation, (iii) high-intensity focused ultrasound, (iv) transurethral ultrasound ablation, (v) focal laser therapy, (vi) bipolar radiofrequency ablation, and (vii) photodynamic therapy. The role of FT in PCa is highly debated for several reasons, mainly because the disease is multifocal in most cases, and long-term outcomes from prospective clinical trials are still lacking. Nevertheless, it has been suggested that focal treatment of the index lesion is sufficient, as this lesion is believed to drive metastatic spread. Therefore, FT is considered a potential treatment option for patients with organ-confined, intermediate-risk PCa as an alternative to whole-gland treatments. Although FT generally preserves voiding and sexual functions, its effectiveness in cancer control needs to be validated through high-quality comparative trials. The aim of this article is to discuss the challenges of patient selection and review the various FT modalities and follow-up strategies after treatment.

Focal therapy for prostate cancer.

Traditional treatments for localized prostate cancer include radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy but pose challenges due to treatment related side effects, namely erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence. In recent years, focal therapy has emerged as a viable treatment option for localized low-intermediate risk prostate cancer in carefully selected patients. Short and medium-term studies show acceptable cancer control outcomes and reduced morbidity when comparing focal therapy to whole gland treatment for prostate cancer, however there is paucity of long-term studies. Here we review focal ablative therapies commonly used, discuss the role of imaging in monitoring treatment, and summarize oncologic outcomes based on studies to date.

Salvage treatments after focal therapy for prostate cancer - a comprehensive review.

To review the literature on salvage treatments after focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa). A non-systematic literature review was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to March 15, 2024, for studies that assessed salvage treatment outcomes in patients with recurrent PCa after primary FT. Original prospective and retrospective studies with more than 10 patients were included. Reviews, editorial comments, conference abstracts, and studies focusing solely on whole-gland treatments were excluded. Twenty-one studies with a total of 1012 patients were included. The most reported salvage treatments were salvage radical prostatectomy followed by re-do ablation therapy. Only one study evaluated salvage radiation therapy. Except for one prospective study, all studies were retrospective. Oncological outcomes showed acceptable biochemical recurrence rates. Functional outcomes varied, with significant impacts observed on erectile function across modalities, though continence rates were less impacted. Complications were generally low across all treatment options. Salvage treatment post-primary FT is feasible, safe, and has reasonable oncologic outcomes. However, significant declines in sexual function are common, while continence is comparatively less affected. The literature primarily consists of retrospective studies; hence, future research should focus on large-scale prospective evaluations to better define treatment protocols and improve patient outcomes.

3062: Salvage Radiotherapy after Failure of Primary Focal Therapy for prostate cancer:A Systematic Review

3062: Salvage Radiotherapy after Failure of Primary Focal Therapy for prostate cancer:A Systematic Review

Bibliometric analysis of focal therapy in prostate cancer research

AbstractIntroductionThe use of focal therapies for prostate cancer (PCa) has soared, as it controls disease and is associated with minimal side effects. Bibliometric analysis examines the global research landscape on any topic to identify gaps in the research and areas for improvement and prioritize future research efforts. This study aims to examine the research outputs and trends and collaboration landscape in the field of focal therapy for PCa on a global scale.MethodsWe searched Medline, PubMed and Scopus for peer‐reviewed publications on our research topic using controlled keywords. Search results were limited to the period between 1980 and 2022, screened for duplicates and then included in our study based on prespecified eligibility criteria. The Bibliometrix Package was used for comprehensive science mapping analysis of co‐authorship, co‐citation and co‐occurrence analysis of countries, institutions, authors, references and keywords in this field.ResultsThis analysis included 2578 research articles. The annual scientific production increased from one article in 1982 to 143 in 2022 (13.21%). The average citation per year was incrementally increasing, and these documents were cited around 32.52 times. The documents included in this analysis were published in 633 sources. The international collaboration index was 22.7. In total, 6280 author keywords were identified. The most used keywords were ‘prostate cancer’, ‘focal therapy’, ‘prostate’ and ‘photodynamic therapy’.ConclusionThis bibliometric analysis has provided a comprehensive review of focal therapy in PCa research, highlighting both the significant growth in the field and the existing gaps that require further exploration. The study points to the need for more diverse international collaboration and exploration of various treatment modalities within the context of focal therapy.

(237) Patient Reported Outcomes in Men Received Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Abstract Introduction Although focal therapy as a definite treatment modality for prostate cancer patients has been increasing in the United States, there has been paucity of patient reported outcome measures (PROM) specific to urinary, erectile, and sexual function Objective We aim to evaluate the long-term PROM in men undergone focal therapy for prostate cancer since 2019. Methods Web search was performed on the PubMed database. The search was limited to articles published in the English language and reporting focal therapy outcomes between 2019 and 2023, including randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective studies. The following data were extracted from each study: year, type of focal therapy, design, participants, demographic, IIEF, ED proportion, IPSS, EPIC, pad incontinence use, fistula rate, urinary retention rate, hematuria, Gleason scores, time to oncologic follow-up, recurrence, and presence of cancer after treatment. Results Twenty-three studies, consisting of cryotherapy, HIFU, TULSA, focal and microwave ablation where met the inclusion criteria and reviewed. Oncologic outcomes were reported in 17 of 23 studies. Median follow-up ranged from 3 to 42 months. Main oncologic outcomes analyzed were in-field/out-of-field recurrence and presence of prostate cancer after treatment. The two largest HIFU studies (n=90, n=101) had 9% and 24% respectively for clinically significant recurrence. The two focal microwave ablation studies (n=55, n=5) had 9% and 20% recurrence rates respectively. Functional outcomes were assessed by IPSS and IIEF. IPSS scores were consistent, with most studies reporting only minimal changes in IPSS after treatment. IIEF scores were generally consistent before and 6 months after procedure for all studies, with some reporting only marginal declines in erectile function. Complication rates among studies were low. Nine studies reported UTI rates ranging from 0% (n=6, n=41) to 30% (n=10) in a TULSA prospective study. Urinary retention rates were reported in 14 studies, with a range from 0% (n=41) to 30% (n=10). Conclusions This review suggests that focal therapies remain safe and effective treatment modality for patients with low-intermediate risk prostate cancer. PROM pertaining to urinary and erectile functions in men undergone focal therapy modality seems to be adequate without worse oncological or complication outcomes. Larger data with oncological and functional outcomes is warranted to further validate its safety and efficacy over longer follow up period. Disclosure No.

(017) Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Focal Therapy Modality

Abstract Introduction Although focal therapy as a treatment modality for prostate cancer patients has been increasing in the United States, there has been a paucity of patient reported outcome measures (PROM) specific to urinary, erectile, and sexual function. Objective We aimed to systematically review the data of long-term PROM in men undergoing focal therapy for prostate cancer since 2019. Methods A web search was performed on the PubMed database. The search was limited to articles published in the English language and reporting focal therapy outcomes between 2019 and 2023, including randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective studies. The following data were extracted from each study: year, type of focal therapy, design, participants, demographic, IIEF, ED proportion, IPSS, EPIC, pad incontinence use, fistula rate, urinary retention rate, hematuria, Gleason scores, time to oncologic follow-up, recurrence, and presence of cancer after treatment. Results Twenty-three studies, consisting of cryotherapy, HIFU, TULSA, focal and microwave ablation met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Oncologic outcomes were reported in 17 of 23 studies. Median follow-up ranged from 3 to 42 months. Main oncologic outcomes analyzed were in-field/out-of-field recurrence and presence of prostate cancer after treatment. The two largest HIFU studies (n=90, n=101) had 9% and 24% respectively for clinically significant recurrence. The two focal microwave ablation studies (n=55, n=5) had 9% and 20% recurrence rates respectively. Functional outcomes were assessed by IPSS and IIEF. IPSS scores were consistent, with most studies reporting only minimal changes in IPSS after treatment. IIEF scores were generally consistent before and 6 months after procedure for all studies, with some reporting only marginal declines in erectile function. Complication rates among studies were low. Nine studies reported UTI rates ranging from 0% (n=6, n=41) to 30% (n=10) in a TULSA prospective study. Urinary retention rates were reported in 14 studies, with a range from 0% (n=41) to 30% (n=10). Conclusions This review suggests that focal therapies remain safe and effective treatment modality for patients with low-intermediate risk prostate cancer. PROM pertaining to urinary and erectile functions in men undergone focal therapy modality seems to be adequate without worse oncological or complication outcomes. Larger data with oncological and functional outcomes is warranted to further validate its safety and efficacy over a longer follow up period. Disclosure No.

Personalized Treatment Strategy in "Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Candidates" Using Irreversible Electroporation: Prospective Evaluation of Feasibility, Morbidity, Functional and Oncological Outcomes.

To evaluate the morbidity, functional and oncological outcome of irreversible electroporation (IRE) as a focal therapy for prostate cancer (PCa) when used in "active surveillance (AS)" candidates refusing standard treatment options. IRE was performed under general anaesthesia, and the transurethral catheter was removed one day after intervention in all patients. Pre- and post-interventional voiding parameters (measured by International Prostate Symptom Score Questionnaire [IPSS], uroflowmetry and post-void residue) were compared. Follow-up (FU) was observed over a minimum of six months, including oncological outcome (controlled by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, rebiopsy, prostate-specific antigen dynamic as well as the need and type of secondary treatment) and general functional outcome (International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire, satisfaction of the procedure). Twenty-four patients refusing AS or standard treatment with a median FU of 18.7 months were included. IPSS showed nine patients with mild, 12 with moderate and two with severe obstructive voiding symptoms pre-intervention (focal IRE). Median IPSS pre-IRE was 9 points, 8.5 (p=0.341) at six months and 10 (p=0.392) after 12 months, respectively. Pre-IRE maximum urinary flow (Qmax) (median: 16.1±8.0 mL/sec) and Qmax after catheter removal (16.2±7.6 mL/sec) did not differ significantly (p=0.904). Thirteen PCa recurrences occurred (54.2%). Out-of-lesion-PCa was found in 12/13 patients (92.3%), while 4/13 patients showed in-lesion-PCa recurrence simultaneously (30.8%). In one patient, there was an in-lesion-PCa recurrence only (7.7%). Six out of 24 patients (25.0%) received a secondary treatment. All patients were satisfied with the IRE procedure. Focal IRE underperforms regarding the overall oncological outcome and should not be offered as an equivalent therapy to established curative treatment strategies. Nevertheless, under a strict FU regimen, its lack of significant additional morbidity compared to an active surveillance strategy makes IRE a feasible alternative for low-risk PCa in highly selected patients as a personalised approach.

MRI-guided Minimally Invasive Focal Therapies for Prostate Cancer.

Two cases involving patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and treated with MRI-guided focal therapies are presented. Patient selection procedures, techniques, outcomes, challenges, and future directions of MRI-guided focal therapies, as well as their role in the treatment of low- to intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer, are summarized.

A Review of Energy Modalities Used for Focal Therapy of Prostate Cancer

A Review of Energy Modalities Used for Focal Therapy of Prostate Cancer

Follow-Up of Men Who Have Undergone Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer with HIFU-A Real-World Experience.

To determine oncological and functional outcomes and side effects after focal therapy of prostate cancer (PCa) with high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). This retrospective single-center study included 57 consecutive patients with localised PCa. Aged 18-80 with ≤2 suspicious lesions on mpMRI (PIRADS ≥ 3), PSA of ≤15 ng/mL, and an ISUP GG of ≤2. HIFU was performed between November 2014 and September 2018. All men had an MRI/US fusion-guided targeted biopsy (TB) combined with a TRUS-guided 10-core systematic biopsy (SB) prior to focal therapy. HIFU treatment was performed as focal, partial, or hemiablative, depending on the prior histopathology. Follow-up included Questionnaires (IIEF-5, ICIQ, and IPSS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurement, follow-up mpMRI, and follow-up biopsies. The median age of the cohort was 72 years (IQR 64-76), and the median PSA value before HIFU was 7.3 ng/mL (IQR 5.75-10.39 ng/mL). The median follow-up was 27.5 (IQR 23-41) months. At the time of the follow-up, the median PSA value was 2.5 ng/mL (IQR 0.94-4.96 ng/mL), which shows a significant decrease (p < 0.001). In 17 (29.8%) men, mpMRI revealed a suspicious lesion, and 19 (33.3%) men had a positive biopsy result. Only IIEF values significantly decreased from 16 (IQR 10.75-20.25) to 11.5 (IQR 4.5-17) (p < 0.001). The rate of post-HIFU complications was low, at 19.3% (11 patients). The limitation of this study is the lack of long-term follow-up. HIFU as a therapy option for nonmetastatic, significant prostate cancer is effective in the short term for carefully selected patients and shows a low risk of adverse events and side effects.

Transrectal Ultrasound as Real-Time Confirmation of Adequate Needle Positioning During Irreversible Electroporation in Focal Therapy of Prostate Cancer

Transrectal Ultrasound as Real-Time Confirmation of Adequate Needle Positioning During Irreversible Electroporation in Focal Therapy of Prostate Cancer

P021 - The value of PSMA-PET in Addition to mpMRI and Systematic Biopsies to Select Patients for Hemi-ablative Focal Therapy in Prostate Cancer

P021 - The value of PSMA-PET in Addition to mpMRI and Systematic Biopsies to Select Patients for Hemi-ablative Focal Therapy in Prostate Cancer

Oncological results and cancer control definition in focal therapyfor Prostate Cancer: a systematic review.

Focal therapy (FT) is a promising alternative to whole-gland treatments for Localized Prostate Cancer. Ten different FT modalities have been described in literature. However, FT is not yet recommended by the International Guidelines, due to the lack of robust data on Oncological Outcomes. The objective of our Narrative Review is to evaluate the oncological profile of the available FT modalities and to offer a comprehensive overview of the definitions of Cancer Control for FT. Literature search was performed on 21stFebruary 2023 using PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA). Articles reporting whole gland-treatments were excluded. All articles reporting oncological outcomes were included. One-hundred-twenty-four studies, reporting data on more than 8000 patients treated with FT, were included. Overall, 40 papers were on High Intensity Focal Ultrasound (HIFU), 24 on Focal Cryotherapy, 13 on Irreversible Electroporation (IRE), 11 on Focal brachytherapy, 10 on Focal Laser Ablation (FLA), 8 on Photo-Dynamic Therapy (PDT), 3 on Microwave ablation, 3 on Robotic Partial Prostatectomy, 2 on bipolar Radio Frequency Ablation (bRFA), 1 on Prostatic Artery Embolization (PAE) and 9 comparative papers. Overall, the Biochemical Recurrence (BCR) rate ranged from 0% (Focal Brachytherapy) to 67.5% (HIFU); the Salvage treatment rate ranged from 1% (IRE) to 54% (HIFU) considering re-treatment with FT and from 0% (Focal Brachytherapy) to 66.7% considering standard Radical Treatments. There is no univocal definition of Cancer Control, however the "Phoenix criteria" for BCR were the most commonly used. FT is a promising alternative treatment for localized prostate cancer in terms of Oncological Outcomes, however there is a wide heterogeneity in the definition of cancer control, the reporting of oncological outcomes and a lack of high-quality clinical trials. Solid comparative studies with standard treatments and an unambiguous consensus on how to describe Cancer Controlin the field of Focal Therapyare needed.