Association between Lesion Location and Oncologic Outcomes after Focal Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer Using Either High Intensity Focused Ultrasound or Cryotherapy. Issue 3 (23rd September 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Stabile, Armando; Sanchez-Salas, Rafael; Tourinho-Barbosa, Rafael; Macek, Petr; Pellegrino, Francesco; Gandaglia, Giorgio; Moschini, Marco; Cathala, Nathalie; Mombet, Annick; Montorsi, Francesco; Briganti, Alberto; Cathelineau, Xavier
• Is Part Of: Journal of urology. Volume 206:Issue 3(2021)
• Page Start: 638
• Page End: 645
• Publication Date: 2021-09-23
• Subjects: prostate cancer -- focal therapy -- HIFU -- cryotherapy -- outcome; Genitourinary organs -- Periodicals; Urology -- Periodicals; Urology -- Periodicals; Urologie -- Périodiques; Urologie; 616.6
• DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001787
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0022-5347

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: We assessed whether prostate cancer (PCa) location might affect oncologic outcomes after focal therapy (FT) for PCa. Materials and Methods: We identified 274 men receiving FT for PCa using either high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) or cryotherapy at a high volume center between 2009 and 2018. Survival analyses using Kaplan–Meier method were used to assess any additional treatment and radical treatment rates according to PCa location. Propensity-score match analysis was used to compare oncologic outcomes of HIFU vs cryotherapy according to PCa location. Covariates were prostate specific antigen, clinical stage, prostate volume, Gleason score, maximum cancer core length, percentage of positive cores and treatment modality. Results: A total of 166 and 108 men received FT with HIFU and cryotherapy, respectively. Overall, 39% (106) and 31% (85) received at least an additional treatment and a radical treatment after FT, respectively, with a median followup of 51 months. At 36 months' followup, the rates of any additional treatment-free survival were 71%, 75%, and 69% for patients with basal, mid-prostate and apical disease, respectively (p=0.7). At multivariable logistic regression analysis, PCa location was not significantly associated with higher risk of either any additional treatment or radical treatment (all p >0.4). After matching, there was no difference between HIFU vs cryotherapy in terms of any additional treatment rates according to PCa location. Conclusions: The PCa location does not significantly affect the rate of failure after FT. The presence of an apical lesion should not be considered an exclusion criteria for FT. Both HIFU and cryotherapy likely achieve similar medium-term oncologic results regardless of PCa location.