High-intensity Focused Ultrasound For Prostate Cancer Research Articles

Information Quality Analysis of YouTube Videos on HIFU for Prostate Cancer: How much is too much?

Prostate adenocarcinoma is the most diagnosed cancer among men [1]. This highly prevalent disease in the localized stage is often tackled with either whole gland treatment (radical prostatectomy or radiation) vs. active surveillance [2-4]. However, in recent times there has been a push towards focal therapy with goals of eradicating significant cancer within the prostate while preserving genitourinary function [5,6]. Trans-rectal High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) ablation of prostate tissue) HIFU for prostate cancer, recently approved by the FDA offers patients and providers another treatment option to consider in management of this disease [7]. Thus, it is imperative that information that patients peruse be reliable and of good quality.

High-intensity focused ultrasound for prostate cancer: a practice guideline

The aim of this practice guideline was to develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians on the use of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) in patients with localized prostate cancer. The guideline was developed using the methods of Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-Based Care (PEBC). The core methodology of the PEBC's guideline development process is systematic review. A comprehensive literature search was undertaken to identify high-quality studies, reviews and other practice guidelines on the use of HIFU in prostate cancer. The evidence formed the basis of the recommendations, which were reviewed and amended where necessary, by clinical experts in medical and radiation oncology and urology. The literature review yielded limited evidence. No randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses comparing HIFU with currently accepted management approaches were identified. The body of evidence is primarily based on data from case series. Internal feedback was provided by the PEBC Genitourinary Disease Site Group membership and the Report Approval Panel. External peer review included targeted review by clinical experts specifically requested to comment on the guideline, and professional consultation through an online survey of health care professionals. HIFU is currently not recommended as an alternative to accepted curative treatment approaches for localized prostate cancer.

HIFU ablation is not a proven standard treatment for localized prostate cancer.

HIFU ablation is not a proven standard treatment for localized prostate cancer.

Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy to monitor the prostate for residual disease or local cancer recurrence after transrectal high‐intensity focused ultrasound

To assess the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for evaluating changes in the prostate after transrectal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for treating prostate cancer, correlating the findings with histology to assess its possible role in predicting the outcome, evaluating residual cancer or local recurrence of disease. Ten patients with prostate cancer were assessed with MR and MR spectroscopy (MRS) before and at 1, 4 and 12 months after HIFU, assessing the glandular volume and MRI and MRS data after HIFU. These data were correlated with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels at each examination (suspicious for residual cancer if >0.5 ng/mL) and with histological findings of prostate biopsy sampling at 6-8 months (random or targeted at suspicious MR areas). Variations in volume during the follow-up were not associated with treatment outcome. MRI was suspicious for residual cancer in one patient at 1 month and in another two at 4 months; in all three patients (one with a PSA level of <0.5 ng/mL) targeted biopsies were positive for cancer. MRI was negative in seven patients; in six of these (one with a PSA level of >0.5 ng/mL) random biopsies were negative, and in one the random biopsies were positive for residual cancer. At 4 months there was a statistically significant difference (P = 0.015) between patients responsive to treatment and those with persistent disease, by combining negative MRI with a PSA level of <0.5 ng/mL; MRS data were suitable for analysis only in three patients with partial necrosis. Our preliminary data support the role of MRI in association with PSA levels as a useful and accurate tool in the follow-up of patients treated with HIFU for prostate cancer. However, considering the economic issue, it should not be used routinely and should be limited to detecting residual cancer (in patients with a PSA level of >0.5 ng/mL) with the main purpose of improving the detection rate of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy. MRS data had no additional value over MRI. Further evaluation is needed to compare the use of contrast media and other techniques (e.g. colour Doppler TRUS) in detecting residual or local recurrent cancer.

HIFU in der Uro-Onkologie

The growing interest in high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) technology is mainly due to its many potential applications as a new energy source and as noninvasive therapy. It has been introduced to urological oncology as a transrectal treatment for prostate cancer and as extracorporeal treatment for kidney cancer. Although its application in the kidney is still at the clinical feasibility phase, HIFU technology is currently being used in daily practice in Europe for the treatment of prostate cancer. Reports in the literature describing results of HIFU for prostate cancer are mainly based on monocentric, prospective clinical studies. The latest published results suggest that HIFU treatment is a valuable option for well-differentiated and moderately differentiated tumors, as well as for local recurrence after external beam radiation. Two different devices for transrectal treatment of prostate cancer are available, which are essentially different in technology, application mode, published results, and side effects.HIFU in locally recurrent cancer after surgery, as well as adjuvant HIFU for local debulking in locally advanced or metastatic disease, shows promising first results for reducing local disease-induced morbidity and for delay of progression.

High‐intensity focused ultrasound in prostate cancer; a systematic literature review of the French Association of Urology

We discuss the efficacy and safety of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) in patients with prostate cancer, to define the best indications for HIFU in daily clinical practice as primary therapy. We searched Medline and Embase for clinical studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of HIFU in prostate cancer (July 2007), and abstracts presented at the 2005-2007 annual meetings of the European Association of Urology and American Urological Association were screened. In all, 37 articles/abstracts were selected. As the data on HIFU as salvage therapy were limited, we focused on HIFU as primary therapy. Studies consisted of case series only. Included patients were approximately 70 years old with T1-T2 N0M0 disease, Gleason Score <or=7, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of <or=28 ng/mL and a prostate volume of <or=40 mL. Negative biopsy rates with the Ablatherm device (EDAP TMS S.A., Vaulx-en-Velin, France) were 64-93%, and a PSA nadir of <or=0.5 ng/mL was achieved in 55-84% of patients. The 5-year actuarial disease-free survival rates were 60-70%. The most common complications were stress urinary incontinence, urinary tract infection, urethral/bladder neck stenosis or strictures, and erectile dysfunction. For the Ablatherm device, the rate of complications has been significantly reduced over the years, due to technical improvements in the device and the use of transurethral resection of the prostate before HIFU. In conclusion, HIFU as primary therapy for prostate cancer is indicated in older patients (>or=70 years) with T1-T2 N0M0 disease, a Gleason score of <7, a PSA level of <15 ng/mL and a prostate volume of <40 mL. In these patients HIFU achieves short-term cancer control, as shown by a high percentage of negative biopsies and significantly reduced PSA levels. The median-term survival data also seem promising, but long-term follow-up studies are needed to further evaluate cancer-specific and overall survival rates before the indications for primary therapy can be expanded.