In:
World Journal of Urology, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 39, No. 4 ( 2021-04), p. 1115-1119
Abstract:
To compare cancer control in anterior compared to posterior prostate cancer lesions treated with a focal HIFU therapy approach. Materials and methods In a prospectively maintained national database, 598 patients underwent focal HIFU (Sonablate ® 500) (March/2007–November/2016). Follow-up occurred with 3-monthly clinic visits and PSA testing in the first year with PSA, every 6–12 months with mpMRI with biopsy for MRI-suspicion of recurrence. Treatment failure was any secondary treatment (ADT/chemotherapy, cryotherapy, EBRT, RRP, or re-HIFU), tumour recurrence with Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 on prostate biopsy without further treatment or metastases/prostate cancer-related mortality. Cases with anterior cancer were compared to those with posterior disease. Results 267 patients were analysed following eligibility criteria. 45 had an anterior focal-HIFU and 222 had a posterior focal-HIFU. Median age was 64 years and 66 years, respectively, with similar PSA level of 7.5 ng/ml and 6.92 ng/ml. 84% and 82%, respectively, had Gleason 3 + 4, 16% in both groups had Gleason 4 + 3, 0% and 2% had Gleason 4 + 4. Prostate volume was similar (33 ml vs. 36 ml, p = 0.315); median number of positive cores in biopsies was different in anterior and posterior tumours (7 vs. 5, p = 0.009), while medium cancer core length, and maximal cancer percentage of core were comparable. 17/45 (37.8%) anterior focal-HIFU patients compared to 45/222 (20.3%) posterior focal-HIFU patients required further treatment ( p = 0.019). Conclusion Treating anterior prostate cancer lesions with focal HIFU may be less effective compared to posterior tumours.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
0724-4983
,
1433-8726
DOI:
10.1007/s00345-020-03297-7
Language:
English
Publisher:
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Publication Date:
2021
detail.hit.zdb_id:
1463303-6
Bookmarklink