Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 261–268 | Cite as

Extra-target low-risk prostate cancer: implications for focal high-intensity focused ultrasound of clinically significant prostate cancer

  • A. AnnootEmail author
  • J. Olivier
  • P. Valtille
  • V. Deken
  • X. Leroy
  • P. Puech
  • A. Villers
Original Article
  • 68 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To analyse the impact of the presence of extra-target non-clinically significant cancer (NCSC) after high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) hemiablation on oncological results. To analyse radical treatment free survival (RTFS) rates at 2–3 years follow-up.

Methods

Retrospective single-centre study of 55 patients treated by primary HIFU hemiablation from 2010 to 2016. Inclusion criteria were unilateral MRI detected CSC, stage ≤ T2b, Gleason score (GS) ≤ 7, at least 6 mm distant from prostate apex. MRI with systematic and targeted biopsies was performed at diagnosis. Follow-up included clinical examination, PSA every 6 month, MRI and biopsies at 1 year and in case of PSA elevation. HIFU retreatment was possible. Whole-gland treatment was indicated in case of positive biopsies with GS ≥ 7 or maximum cancer core length > 5 mm, any GS.

Results

Mean follow-up was 33 months (SD: 17–49 months). Presence or not of an extra-target NCSC in the untreated part of the gland had no impact on RTFS at univariate analysis (p = 0.29). 10 (18%) patients had a salvage whole-gland treatment after a median follow-up of 26 months (IQR 17–28). RTFS at 2 and 3 years were 92% and 80%.

Conclusion

Presence or not of an extra-target NCSC in the untreated part of the gland had no impact on RTFS. NCSC lesion can be left untreated and actively monitored. RTFS was 80% at 3 years which support the concept of focal/partial treatment as a treatment option of CSC prostate cancer.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Focal therapy Index lesion Secondary lesion High-intensity focused ultrasound 

Notes

Author contributions

AA: Manuscript writing/editing, data collection or management/protocol/project development. JO: Manuscript writing/editing. PV: Data collection or management. VD: Data analysis. XL: Data collection or management. PP: Data collection or management. AV: Manuscript writing/editing, data collection or management/protocol/project development.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Formal consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71(4):618–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Resnick MJ, Koyama T, Fan K-H, Albertsen PC, Goodman M, Hamilton AS et al (2013) Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 368(5):436–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Valerio M, Cerantola Y, Eggener SE, Lepor H, Polascik TJ, Villers A et al (2017) New and established technology in focal ablation of the prostate: a systematic review. Eur Urol 71(1):17–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Donaldson IA, Alonzi R, Barratt D, Barret E, Berge V, Bott S et al (2015) Focal therapy: patients, interventions, and outcomes—a report from a consensus meeting. Eur Urol 67(4):771–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nevoux P, Ouzzane A, Ahmed HU, Emberton M, Montironi R, Presti JC Jr et al (2011) Quantitative tissue analyses of prostate cancer foci in an unselected cystoprostatectomy series. BJU Int 110(4):517–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yoon GS, Wang W, Osunkoya AO, Lane Z, Partin AW, Epstein JI (2008) Residual tumor potentially left behind after local ablation therapy in prostate adenocarcinoma. J Urol 179(6):2203–2206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Villers A, McNeal JE, Freiha FS, Stamey TA (1992) Multiple cancers in the prostate. Morphologic features of clinically recognized versus incidental tumors. Cancer 70(9):2313–2318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liu W, Laitinen S, Khan S, Vihinen M, Kowalski J, Yu G et al (2009) Copy number analysis indicates monoclonal origin of lethal metastatic prostate cancer. Nat Med 15(5):559–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ahmed HU et al (2009) The index lesion and the origin of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 361(17):1704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karavitakis M, Winkler M, Abel P, Livni N, Beckley I, Ahmed HU (2011) Histological characteristics of the index lesion in whole-mount radical prostatectomy specimens: implications for focal therapy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 14(1):46–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huang CC, Deng F-M, Kong MX, Ren Q, Melamed J, Zhou M (2014) Re-evaluating the concept of “dominant/index tumor nodule” in multifocal prostate cancer. Virchows Arch 464(5):589–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Arora R, Koch MO, Eble JN, Ulbright TM, Li L, Cheng L (2004) Heterogeneity of Gleason grade in multifocal adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Cancer. 100(11):2362–2366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, Jethava V, Zhang L, Jain S et al (2015) Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 33(3):272–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rischmann P, Gelet A, Riche B, Villers A, Pasticier G, Bondil P et al (2017) Focal high intensity focused ultrasound of unilateral localized prostate cancer: a prospective multicentric hemiablation study of 111 patients. Eur Urol 71(2):267–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tay KJ, Scheltema MJ, Ahmed HU, Barret E, Coleman JA, Dominguez-Escrig J et al (2017) Patient selection for prostate focal therapy in the era of active surveillance: an International Delphi Consensus Project. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 20(3):294–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Crouzet S, Chapelon JY, Rouvière O, Mege-Lechevallier F, Colombel M, Tonoli-Catez H et al (2014) Whole-gland ablation of localized prostate cancer with high-intensity focused ultrasound: oncologic outcomes and morbidity in 1002 patients. Eur Urol 65(5):907–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Muto S, Yoshii T, Saito K, Kamiyama Y, Ide H, Horie S (2008) Focal therapy with high-intensity-focused ultrasound in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 38(3):192–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ahmed HU, Hindley RG, Dickinson L, Freeman A, Kirkham AP, Sahu M et al (2012) Focal therapy for localised unifocal and multifocal prostate cancer: a prospective development study. Lancet Oncol 13(6):622–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Velthoven R, Aoun F, Limani K, Narahari K, Lemort M, Peltier A (2014) Primary zonal high intensity focused ultrasound for prostate cancer: results of a prospective phase iia feasibility study. Prostate Cancer 2014:1–6Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ahmed HU, Dickinson L, Charman S, Weir S, McCartan N, Hindley RG et al (2015) Focal ablation targeted to the index lesion in multifocal localised prostate cancer: a prospective development study. Eur Urol 68(6):927–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Feijoo ERC, Sivaraman A, Barret E, Sanchez-Salas R, Galiano M, Rozet F et al (2016) Focal high-intensity focused ultrasound targeted hemiablation for unilateral prostate cancer: a prospective evaluation of oncologic and functional outcomes. Eur Urol 69(2):214–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fegoun ABE, Barret E, Prapotnich D, Soon S, Cathelineau X, Rozet F et al (2011) Focal therapy with high-intensity focused ultrasound for prostate cancer in the elderly: a feasibility study with 10 years follow-up. Int Braz J Urol 37(2):213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ganzer R, Hadaschik B, Pahernik S, Koch D, Baumunk D, Kuru T et al (2018) Prospective multicenter phase II study on focal therapy (hemiablation) of the prostate with high intensity focused ultrasound. J Urol 199(4):983–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Guillaumier S, Peters M, Arya M, Afzal N, Charman S, Dudderidge T et al (2018) A multicentre study of 5-year outcomes following focal therapy in treating clinically significant nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Eur Urol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.006 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Annoot
    • 1
    Email author
  • J. Olivier
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • P. Valtille
    • 1
  • V. Deken
    • 4
  • X. Leroy
    • 2
    • 5
  • P. Puech
    • 2
    • 3
    • 6
  • A. Villers
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of UrologyCHRU Lille, Lille UniversityLilleFrance
  2. 2.University LilleLilleFrance
  3. 3.INSERM, ONCO-THAI U1189LilleFrance
  4. 4.Department of BiostatisticsUniversity Lille, CHU Lille, EA 2694LilleFrance
  5. 5.Department of PathologyCHRU Lille, Lille UniversityLilleFrance
  6. 6.Department of RadiologyCHRU Lille, Lille UniversityLilleFrance

Personalised recommendations