Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Urology 10/2019

01-10-2019 | Prostate Cancer | Original Article

Oncological long-term outcome of whole gland HIFU and open radical prostatectomy: a comparative analysis

Authors: Bernd Rosenhammer, Roman Ganzer, Florian Zeman, Theresa Näger, Hans-Martin Fritsche, Andreas Blana, Maximilian Burger, Johannes Bründl

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 10/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the oncological long-term efficacy of whole gland high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) therapy and radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.

Methods

418 patients after open RP (1997–2004) were compared with 469 patients after whole gland HIFU (1997–2009) without preselection. Oncological follow-up focused on biochemical relapse, salvage treatment, life status and cause-specific mortality. The univariate log rank test was used to compare both treatment options regarding overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), biochemical failure-free survival (BFS) and salvage treatment-free survival (STS). To adjust the treatment effect for further prognostic baseline variables, a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model was calculated for each end point.

Results

Median follow-up was 13.3 years in the RP group and 6.5 years in the HIFU group. OS/CSS/BFS/STS rates at 10 years were 91/98/80/80% after RP and 76/94/70/71% after HIFU. HIFU therapy (reference RP) was a significant and independent predictor for an inferior OS, CSS and STS. In subgroup analysis, HIFU provided significantly reduced CSS for intermediate- (p = 0.010) and high-risk patients (p = 0.048); whereas no difference was observed in the low-risk group, intermediate-risk HIFU patients showed a significantly inferior STS (p = 0.040).

Conclusions

While whole gland HIFU offers a comparable long-term efficacy for low-risk patients, sufficient cancer control for high-risk patients is more than doubtful. For the subgroup of intermediate-risk patients, CSS rates seem to be comparable up to 10 years suggesting that HIFU may be an alternative for older patients, although a higher risk of salvage treatment should be expected.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Chaussy CG, Thuroff S (2017) High-intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of prostate cancer: a review. J Endourol 31(S1):S30–S37CrossRef Chaussy CG, Thuroff S (2017) High-intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of prostate cancer: a review. J Endourol 31(S1):S30–S37CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Jones TA et al (2018) High intensity focused ultrasound for radiorecurrent prostate cancer: a North American clinical trial. J Urol 199(1):133–139CrossRef Jones TA et al (2018) High intensity focused ultrasound for radiorecurrent prostate cancer: a North American clinical trial. J Urol 199(1):133–139CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Blana A et al (2008) Eight years’ experience with high-intensity focused ultrasonography for treatment of localized prostate cancer. Urology 72(6):1329–1333CrossRef Blana A et al (2008) Eight years’ experience with high-intensity focused ultrasonography for treatment of localized prostate cancer. Urology 72(6):1329–1333CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Crouzet S et al (2010) Multicentric oncologic outcomes of high-intensity focused ultrasound for localized prostate cancer in 803 patients. Eur Urol 58(4):559–566CrossRef Crouzet S et al (2010) Multicentric oncologic outcomes of high-intensity focused ultrasound for localized prostate cancer in 803 patients. Eur Urol 58(4):559–566CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Poissonnier L et al (2007) Control of prostate cancer by transrectal HIFU in 227 patients. Eur Urol 51(2):381–387CrossRef Poissonnier L et al (2007) Control of prostate cancer by transrectal HIFU in 227 patients. Eur Urol 51(2):381–387CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Uchida T et al (2006) Five years experience of transrectal high-intensity focused ultrasound using the Sonablate device in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Int J Urol 13(3):228–233CrossRef Uchida T et al (2006) Five years experience of transrectal high-intensity focused ultrasound using the Sonablate device in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Int J Urol 13(3):228–233CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Thuroff S et al (2003) High-intensity focused ultrasound and localized prostate cancer: efficacy results from the European multicentric study. J Endourol 17(8):673–677CrossRef Thuroff S et al (2003) High-intensity focused ultrasound and localized prostate cancer: efficacy results from the European multicentric study. J Endourol 17(8):673–677CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Ficarra V et al (2006) Short-term outcome after high-intensity focused ultrasound in the treatment of patients with high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 98(6):1193–1198CrossRef Ficarra V et al (2006) Short-term outcome after high-intensity focused ultrasound in the treatment of patients with high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 98(6):1193–1198CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Pfeiffer D, Berger J, Gross AJ (2012) Single application of high-intensity focused ultrasound as a first-line therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: 5-years outcomes. BJU Int 110(11):1702–1707CrossRef Pfeiffer D, Berger J, Gross AJ (2012) Single application of high-intensity focused ultrasound as a first-line therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: 5-years outcomes. BJU Int 110(11):1702–1707CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Dickinson L et al (2016) Medium-term outcomes after whole-gland high-intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of nonmetastatic prostate cancer from a multicentre registry cohort. Eur Urol 70(4):668–674CrossRef Dickinson L et al (2016) Medium-term outcomes after whole-gland high-intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of nonmetastatic prostate cancer from a multicentre registry cohort. Eur Urol 70(4):668–674CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Mottet N et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71(4):618–629CrossRef Mottet N et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71(4):618–629CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Ganzer R et al (2013) Fourteen-year oncological and functional outcomes of high-intensity focused ultrasound in localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 112(3):322–329CrossRef Ganzer R et al (2013) Fourteen-year oncological and functional outcomes of high-intensity focused ultrasound in localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 112(3):322–329CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Thuroff S, Chaussy C (2013) Evolution and outcomes of 3 MHz high intensity focused ultrasound therapy for localized prostate cancer during 15 years. J Urol 190(2):702–710CrossRef Thuroff S, Chaussy C (2013) Evolution and outcomes of 3 MHz high intensity focused ultrasound therapy for localized prostate cancer during 15 years. J Urol 190(2):702–710CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Crouzet S 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):907–914CrossRef Crouzet S 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):907–914CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Roach M 3rd et al (2006) Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65(4):965–974CrossRef Roach M 3rd et al (2006) Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65(4):965–974CrossRef
16.
go back to reference D’Amico AV et al (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280(11):969–974CrossRef D’Amico AV et al (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280(11):969–974CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Albisinni S et al (2017) Comparing high-intensity focal ultrasound hemiablation to robotic radical prostatectomy in the management of unilateral prostate cancer: a matched-pair analysis. J Endourol 31(1):14–19CrossRef Albisinni S et al (2017) Comparing high-intensity focal ultrasound hemiablation to robotic radical prostatectomy in the management of unilateral prostate cancer: a matched-pair analysis. J Endourol 31(1):14–19CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Capogrosso P et al (2018) Oncological and functional outcomes of elderly men treated with HIFU vs. minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: a propensity score analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 44(1):185–191CrossRef Capogrosso P et al (2018) Oncological and functional outcomes of elderly men treated with HIFU vs. minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: a propensity score analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 44(1):185–191CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Garcia-Barreras S et al (2018) Comparative analysis of partial gland ablation and radical prostatectomy to treat low and intermediate risk prostate cancer: oncologic and functional outcomes. J Urol 199(1):140–146CrossRef Garcia-Barreras S et al (2018) Comparative analysis of partial gland ablation and radical prostatectomy to treat low and intermediate risk prostate cancer: oncologic and functional outcomes. J Urol 199(1):140–146CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Chiang PH, Liu YY (2016) Comparisons of oncological and functional outcomes among radical retropubic prostatectomy, high dose rate brachytherapy, cryoablation and high-intensity focused ultrasound for localized prostate cancer. Springerplus 5(1):1905CrossRef Chiang PH, Liu YY (2016) Comparisons of oncological and functional outcomes among radical retropubic prostatectomy, high dose rate brachytherapy, cryoablation and high-intensity focused ultrasound for localized prostate cancer. Springerplus 5(1):1905CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Bill-Axelson A et al (2011) Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 364(18):1708–1717CrossRef Bill-Axelson A et al (2011) Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 364(18):1708–1717CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Wilt TJ et al (2012) Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 367(3):203–213CrossRef Wilt TJ et al (2012) Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 367(3):203–213CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Hamdy FC et al (2016) 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375(15):1415–1424CrossRef Hamdy FC et al (2016) 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375(15):1415–1424CrossRef
24.
go back to reference van der Poel HG et al (2018) Focal therapy in primary localised prostate cancer: the European association of urology position in 2018. Eur Urol 74:84–91CrossRef van der Poel HG et al (2018) Focal therapy in primary localised prostate cancer: the European association of urology position in 2018. Eur Urol 74:84–91CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Epstein JI et al (2005) The 2005 International Society Of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29(9):1228–1242CrossRef Epstein JI et al (2005) The 2005 International Society Of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29(9):1228–1242CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Oncological long-term outcome of whole gland HIFU and open radical prostatectomy: a comparative analysis
Authors
Bernd Rosenhammer
Roman Ganzer
Florian Zeman
Theresa Näger
Hans-Martin Fritsche
Andreas Blana
Maximilian Burger
Johannes Bründl
Publication date
01-10-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
World Journal of Urology / Issue 10/2019
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2613-z

Other articles of this Issue 10/2019

World Journal of Urology 10/2019 Go to the issue