A Multicenter, Randomized, Single-blind, 2-Arm Intervention Study Evaluating the Adverse Events and Quality of Life After Irreversible Electroporation for the Ablation of Localized Low-intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer. Issue 2 (28th November 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: de la Rosette, Jean; Dominguez-Escrig, Jose; Zhang, Kai; Teoh, Jeremy; Barret, Eric; Ramon-Borja, Juan Casanova; Muir, Gordon; Bohr, Julia; de Reijke, Theo; Ng, Chi-Fai; Leung, Chi-Ho; Sanchez-Salas, Rafael; Laguna, Pilar
• Is Part Of: Journal of urology. Volume 209:Issue 2(2023)
• Page Start: 347
• Page End: 353
• Publication Date: 2022-11-28
• Subjects: prostatic neoplasms, -- electroporation, -- drug-related side effects and adverse reactions, -- quality of life; Genitourinary organs -- Periodicals; Urology -- Periodicals; Urology -- Periodicals; Urologie -- Périodiques; Urologie; 616.6
• DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003051
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0022-5347

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: Our goal was to evaluate the effect of focal vs extended irreversible electroporation on side effects, patient-reported quality of life, and early oncologic control for localized low-intermediate risk prostate cancer patients. Materials and Methods: Men with localized low-intermediate risk prostate cancer were randomized to receive focal or extended irreversible electroporation ablation. Quality of life was measured by International Index of Erectile Function, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaire, and International Prostate Symptom Score. Results: A total of 51 and 55 patients underwent focal and extended irreversible electroporation, respectively. The median follow-up time was 30 months. Rates of erectile dysfunction and rates of adverse events were similar between the 2 groups at 3 months. The focal ablation group seemed to have better International Index of Erectile Function scores at 3 months; it also had a better Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-sexual function score than the extended ablation group across time that was close to statistical significance (mean difference 1.4; 95% CI −0.13 to 2.9, P = .073). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in other quality-of-life measures. Upon prostate biopsy at 6 months, the rate of residual clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason ≥3 + 4) was 18.8% and 13.2% in the focal and extended irreversible electroporation groups, respectively, without significant differences. Conclusions: Focal and extended irreversible electroporation ablation had similar safety profile, urinary function, and oncologic outcomes in men with localized low-intermediate risk prostate cancer. In addition, focal ablation demonstrated superior erectile function outcome over extended irreversible electroporation in the first 3-6 months.