Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Future Uro-technologies: Hope or Hell for Prostate Cancer Patients?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Focal Therapy of Prostate Cancer

  • 518 Accesses

Abstract

The most important danger of focal therapy is inherent with the development of new technologies encouraging the rapid spread of new techniques, shortcutting the real bottleneck of medical innovation validation: the randomized controlled trial. There is a time frame to seize the opportunity of a clinical trial for new surgical technologies, between safety validation on preclinical models and the empirical adoption of this new technique by a large surgeon community that would make it hard to compare new techniques with the original standard one. The classical example to illustrate this fact is the development of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP): no prospective randomized controlled trial had been led to compare it with open radical or laparoscopic prostatectomies in order to obtain approval of this technique. Today we probably missed the train, and it is very unlikely that a large prospective trial can be designed with clinicians and patients accepting to be included in the controlled arm of open prostatectomy while they could benefit the pretended better technique of RARP. This problem of safe and rigorous evaluation is particularly challenging for surgical techniques compared to new drug development since it requires good collaborations inside surgeons’ community.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, Margolese RG, Deutsch M, Fisher ER, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(16):1233–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fergany AF, Hafez KS, Novick AC. Long-term results of nephron sparing surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma: 10-year follow-up. J Urol. 2000;163(2):442–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Huang WC, Elkin EB, Levey AS, Jang TL, Russo P. Partial nephrectomy versus radical nephrectomy in patients with small renal tumors–is there a difference in mortality and cardiovascular outcomes? J Urol. 2009;181(1):55–61; discussion 61–2.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Solomon BL, Wartofsky L, Burman KD. Current trends in the management of well differentiated papillary thyroid carcinoma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1996;81(1):333–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kennedy JE, Wu F, ter Haar GR, Gleeson FV, Phillips RR, Middleton MR, et al. High-intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of liver tumours. Ultrasonics. 2004;42(1–9):931–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lencioni R, Cioni D, Crocetti L, Franchini C, Pina CD, Lera J, et al. Early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: long-term results of percutaneous image-guided radiofrequency ablation. Radiology. 2005;234(3):961–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Sohn TA, Lillemoe KD, Pitt HA, Talamini MA, et al. Six hundred fifty consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies in the 1990s: pathology, complications, and outcomes. Ann Surg. 1997;226(3):248–57; discussion 257–60.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Valerio M, Ahmed HU, Emberton M, Lawrentschuk N, Lazzeri M, Montironi R, et al. The role of focal therapy in the management of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2014;66:732–51.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, Gettman MT. The new economics of radical prostatectomy: cost comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot assisted techniques. J Urol. 2004;172(4 Pt 1):1431–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J, Sandler HM, Northouse L, Hembroff L, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(12):1250–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Crook J, Malone S, Perry G, Bahadur Y, Robertson S, Abdolell M. Postradiotherapy prostate biopsies: what do they really mean? Results for 498 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;48(2):355–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pollack A, Zagars GK, Antolak JA, Kuban DA, Rosen II. Prostate biopsy status and PSA nadir level as early surrogates for treatment failure: analysis of a prostate cancer randomized radiation dose escalation trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;54(3):677–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zelefsky MJ, Fuks Z, Hunt M, Lee HJ, Lombardi D, Ling CC, et al. High dose radiation delivered by intensity modulated conformal radiotherapy improves the outcome of localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2001;166(3):876–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Grossfeld GD, Li Y-P, Lubeck DP, Broering JM, Mehta SS, Carroll PR. Predictors of secondary cancer treatment in patients receiving local therapy for prostate cancer: data from cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research endeavor. J Urol. 2002;168(2):530–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Taylor LG, Canfield SE, Du XL. Review of major adverse effects of androgen-deprivation therapy in men with prostate cancer. Cancer. 2009;115(11):2388–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nguyen PL, D’Amico AV, Lee AK, Suh WW. Patient selection, cancer control, and complications after salvage local therapy for postradiation prostate-specific antigen failure: a systematic review of the literature. Cancer. 2007;110(7):1417–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Boukaram C, Hannoun-Levi J-M. Management of prostate cancer recurrence after definitive radiation therapy. Cancer Treat Rev. 2010;36(2):91–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zacharakis E, Ahmed HU, Ishaq A, Scott R, Illing R, Freeman A, et al. The feasibility and safety of high-intensity focused ultrasound as salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer following external beam radiotherapy. BJU Int. 2008;102(7):786–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Huang WC, Kuroiwa K, Serio AM, Bianco Jr FJ, Fine SW, Shayegan B, et al. The anatomical and pathological characteristics of irradiated prostate cancers may influence the oncological efficacy of salvage ablative therapies. J Urol. 2007;177(4):1324–9; quiz 1591.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pucar D, Hricak H, Shukla-Dave A, Kuroiwa K, Drobnjak M, Eastham J, et al. Clinically significant prostate cancer local recurrence after radiation therapy occurs at the site of primary tumor: magnetic resonance imaging and step-section pathology evidence. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;69(1):62–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cellini N, Morganti AG, Mattiucci GC, Valentini V, Leone M, Luzi S, et al. Analysis of intraprostatic failures in patients treated with hormonal therapy and radiotherapy: implications for conformal therapy planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;53(3):595–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Arakawa A, Song S, Scardino PT, Wheeler TM. High grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in prostates removed following irradiation failure in the treatment of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Pathol Res Pract. 1995;191(9):868–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cheng L, Cheville JC, Pisansky TM, Sebo TJ, Slezak J, Bergstralh EJ, et al. Prevalence and distribution of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in salvage radical prostatectomy specimens after radiation therapy. Am J Surg Pathol. 1999;23(7):803–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nguyen PL, Chen M-H, D’Amico AV, Tempany CM, Steele GS, Albert M, et al. Magnetic resonance image-guided salvage brachytherapy after radiation in select men who initially presented with favorable-risk prostate cancer: a prospective phase 2 study. Cancer. 2007;110(7):1485–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Eisenberg ML, Shinohara K. Partial salvage cryoablation of the prostate for recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy failure. Urology. 2008;72(6):1315–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gowardhan B, Greene D. Salvage cryotherapy: is there a role for focal therapy? J Endourol. 2010;24(5):861–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. De Castro Abreu AL, Bahn D, Leslie S, Shoji S, Silverman P, Desai MM, et al. Salvage focal and salvage total cryoablation for locally recurrent prostate cancer after primary radiation therapy. BJU Int. 2013;112(3):298–307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ahmed HU, Cathcart P, McCartan N, Kirkham A, Allen C, Freeman A, et al. Focal salvage therapy for localized prostate cancer recurrence after external beam radiotherapy: a pilot study. Cancer. 2012;118(17):4148–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Shariat SF, Raptidis G, Masatoschi M, Bergamaschi F, Slawin KM. Pilot study of radiofrequency interstitial tumor ablation (RITA) for the treatment of radio-recurrent prostate cancer. Prostate. 2005;65(3):260–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cohen MS, Hanley RS, Kurteva T, Ruthazer R, Silverman ML, Sorcini A, et al. Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: the Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2008;54(2):371–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kuroiwa K, Shiraishi T, Naito S, Clinicopathological Research Group for Localized Prostate Cancer Investigators. Gleason score correlation between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens and prediction of high-grade Gleason patterns: significance of central pathologic review. Urology. 2011;77(2):407–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Djavan B, Kadesky K, Klopukh B, Marberger M, Roehrborn CG. Gleason scores from prostate biopsies obtained with 18-gauge biopsy needles poorly predict Gleason scores of radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol. 1998;33(3):261–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gleason DF. Undergrading of prostate cancer biopsies: a paradox inherent in all biologic bivariate distributions. Urology. 1996;47(3):289–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol. 2014;65(1):124–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ahmed HU, Freeman A, Kirkham A, Sahu M, Scott R, Allen C, et al. Focal therapy for localized prostate cancer: a phase I/II trial. J Urol. 2011;185(4):1246–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Academisch Medisch Centrum, Postbus 22660, Amsterdam, 1100DD, The Netherlands

    Alexandre Ingels, M. Pilar Laguna & Jean J. M. C. H. de la Rosette

Authors
  1. Alexandre Ingels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Pilar Laguna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jean J. M. C. H. de la Rosette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean J. M. C. H. de la Rosette .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Klinikum München-Harlaching, München, Germany

    Stefan Thüroff

  2. Department of Urology, University of Regensburg Caritas Hospital St. Josef, Regensburg, Germany

    Christian G. Chaussy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ingels, A., Laguna, M.P., de la Rosette, J.J.M.C.H. (2015). Future Uro-technologies: Hope or Hell for Prostate Cancer Patients?. In: Thüroff, S., Chaussy, C. (eds) Focal Therapy of Prostate Cancer. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14160-2_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14160-2_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-14159-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-14160-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation