Top

Published in:

01-06-2015 | Prostate Cancer (A Kibel, Section Editor)

Current Trends and New Frontiers in Focal Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

Authors: Melissa H. Mendez, Daniel Y. Joh, Rajan Gupta, Thomas J. Polascik

Published in: Current Urology Reports | Issue 6/2015

Abstract

Prostate cancer (PCa) care is an ever-evolving field. Research and technological developments continue to refine our definitions and management of this disease. Now, with a greater understanding of the natural history of PCa, the prevention of overtreatment has shaped a new era with the adoption of active surveillance (AS) and advancement of focal therapy (FT). Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) allows us to define, locate, and monitor cancers in a way never before possible. These capabilities combined with promising results from current prospective studies have changed the face of FT. This review presents the latest developments, current trends, and next steps in FT.

Loeb S, Catalona WJ. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) should drive doing prostate biopsies. Urol Oncol. 2012;30(1):1–2. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.10.007.CrossRefPubMed

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. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa074311.CrossRefPubMed

Mufarrij P, Sankin A, Godoy G, Lepor H. Pathologic outcomes of candidates for active surveillance undergoing radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2010;76(3):689–92. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2009.12.075.CrossRefPubMed

Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA. 1994;271(5):368–74.CrossRefPubMed

5.•

Van der Kwast TH, Roobol MJ. Defining the threshold for significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol. 2013;10(8):473–82. doi:10.1038/nrurol.2013.112. Represents a growing body of evidence supporting the indolent nature of most GS6 disease and argues to expand the definition for insignificant disease.CrossRefPubMed

Sundi D, Ross AE, Humphreys EB, Han M, Partin AW, Carter HB, et al. African American men with very low-risk prostate cancer exhibit adverse oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy: should active surveillance still be an option for them? J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(24):2991–7. doi:10.1200/JCO.2012.47.0302.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Bhindi B, Kulkarni GS, Finelli A, Alibhai SM, Hamilton RJ, Toi A, et al. Obesity is associated with risk of progression for low-risk prostate cancers managed expectantly. Eur Urol. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.005.

Muller BG, van den Bos W, Brausi M, Cornud F, Gontero P, Kirkham A, et al. Role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in focal therapy for prostate cancer: a Delphi consensus project. BJU Int. 2014;114(5):698–707. doi:10.1111/bju.12548.CrossRefPubMed

9.••

Donaldson IA, Alonzi R, Barratt D, Barret E, Berge V, Bott S, et al. Focal therapy: patients, interventions, and outcomes—a report from a consensus meeting. Eur Urol. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.018. Statements from the most recent expert consensus panel on recommendations for patient selection, appropriate work-up for FT treatments, and meaningful outcomes.PubMedCentral

10.•

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(4):732–51. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.048. Systematic review of the short-to-medium term outcomes of FT treatments across multiple modalities.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

11.

Klotz L, Polascik T. Low risk and very low risk prostate cancer: is there a role for focal therapy in the era of active surveillance. Oncology. 2014;28(11):950.PubMed

12.

Barbieri CE, Demichelis F, Rubin MA. The lethal clone in prostate cancer: redefining the index. Eur Urol. 2014;66(3):395–7. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.052.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Liu W, Laitinen S, Khan S, Vihinen M, Kowalski J, Yu G, et al. Copy number analysis indicates monoclonal origin of lethal metastatic prostate cancer. Nat Med. 2009;15(5):559–65. doi:10.1038/nm.1944.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

14.

Haffner MC, Mosbruger T, Esopi DM, Fedor H, Heaphy CM, Walker DA, et al. Tracking the clonal origin of lethal prostate cancer. J Clin Invest. 2013;123(11):4918–22. doi:10.1172/JCI70354.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

15.

Bryant RJ, Verrill C, Hamdy FC. The genomic diversity of prostate cancer: our Achilles heel explored. Eur Urol. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.026.PubMed

16.

Rice KR, Furusato B, Chen Y, McLeod DG, Sesterhenn IA, Brassell SA. Clinicopathological behavior of single focus prostate adenocarcinoma. J Urol. 2009;182(6):2689–94. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.055.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Nolley R. Prognostic factors for multifocal prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of significance of secondary cancers. J Urol. 2003;170(2 Pt 1):459–63. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000070928.49986.04.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Eggener SE, Scardino PT, Carroll PR, Zelefsky MJ, Sartor O, Hricak H, et al. Focal therapy for localized prostate cancer: a critical appraisal of rationale and modalities. J Urol. 2007;178(6):2260–7. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.072.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Iremashvili V, Pelaez L, Manoharan M, Acosta K, Rosenberg DL, Soloway MS. Tumor focality is not associated with biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy. Prostate. 2012;72(7):762–8. doi:10.1002/pros.21481.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Wise AM, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Clayton JL. Morphologic and clinical significance of multifocal prostate cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology. 2002;60(2):264–9.CrossRefPubMed

21.•

Le JD, Tan N, Shkolyar E, Lu DY, Kwan L, Marks LS, et al. Multifocality and prostate cancer detection by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. Eur Urol. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.079. Demonstrates the histopathological findings of multifocal prostate cancer, the predominant prevalence of GS6 in SL, and mpMRI’s potential to miss small volume lesions.PubMed

22.••

de Rooij M, Hamoen EHJ, Fütterer JJ, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(2):343–51. doi:10.2214/AJR.13.11046. Meta-analysis examining the accuracy of mpMRI found a pooled specificity of 88%, sensitivity of 74%, and NPV ranging from 64 to 94%.CrossRef

23.

Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(4):746–57. doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

24.

Futterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Scheenen TW, Veltman J, Huisman HJ, Vos P, et al. Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology. 2006;241(2):449–58. doi:10.1148/radiol.2412051866.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Gupta RT, Kauffman CR, Polascik TJ, Taneja SS, Rosenkrantz AB. The state of prostate MRI in 2013. Oncology (Williston Park). 2013;27(4):262–70.

26.

Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology. 2011. doi:10.1148/radiol.091409.

27.

Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T, Mazaheri Y, Zheng J, Moskowitz C, et al. Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology. 2011;259(3):775–84. doi:10.1148/radiol.11102066.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

28.

Woodfield CA, Tung GA, Grand DJ, Pezzullo JA, Machan JT, Renzulli 2nd JF. Diffusion-weighted MRI of peripheral zone prostate cancer: comparison of tumor apparent diffusion coefficient with Gleason score and percentage of tumor on core biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(4):W316–22. doi:10.2214/AJR.09.2651.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Verma S, Rajesh A, Morales H, Lemen L, Bills G, Delworth M, et al. Assessment of aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with histologic grade after radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(2):374–81. doi:10.2214/AJR.10.4441.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Verma S, Turkbey B, Muradyan N, Rajesh A, Cornud F, Haider MA, et al. Overview of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis and management. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(6):1277–88. doi:10.2214/AJR.12.8510.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Vargas HA, Wassberg C, Akin O, Hricak H. MR imaging of treated prostate cancer. Radiology. 2012;262(1):26–42. doi:10.1148/radiol.11101996.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V, Rastinehad AR, Bernardo M, Pohida T, et al. Multiparametric 3 T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol. 2011;186(5):1818–24. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.07.013.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Turkbey B, Pinto PA, Mani H, Bernardo M, Pang Y, McKinney YL, et al. Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection–histopathologic correlation. Radiology. 2010;255(1):89–99. doi:10.1148/radiol.09090475.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

34.

Rosenkrantz AB, Neil J, Kong X, Melamed J, Babb JS, Taneja SS, et al. Prostate cancer: comparison of 3D T2-weighted with conventional 2D T2-weighted imaging for image quality and tumor detection. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(2):446–52. doi:10.2214/ajr.09.3217.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Kitajima K, Kaji Y, Fukabori Y, Yoshida K, Suganuma N, Sugimura K. Prostate cancer detection with 3 T MRI: comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in combination with T2-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;31(3):625–31. doi:10.1002/jmri.22075.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Vilanova JC, Barcelo-Vidal C, Comet J, Boada M, Barcelo J, Ferrer J, et al. Usefulness of prebiopsy multifunctional and morphologic MRI combined with free-to-total prostate-specific antigen ratio in the detection of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(6):W715–22. doi:10.2214/ajr.10.5700.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Portalez D, Mozer P, Cornud F, Renard-Penna R, Misrai V, Thoulouzan M, et al. Validation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in a cohort of repeat biopsy patients. Eur Urol. 2012;62(6):986–96. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.06.044.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Grey AD, Chana MS, Popert R, Wolfe K, Liyanage SH, Acher PL. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) scoring in a transperineal prostate biopsy setting. BJU Int. 2014. doi:10.1111/bju.12862.PubMed

39.

Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E, Schroder FH, Parkinson R, Barentsz JO, et al. Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol. 2014;66(1):22–9. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.03.002.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo G, Pennisi M. Can 3-Tesla pelvic phased-array multiparametric MRI avoid unnecessary repeat prostate biopsy in patients with PSA < 10 ng/mL? Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.clgc.2014.06.013.

41.

Jambor I, Kahkonen E, Taimen P, Merisaari H, Saunavaara J, Alanen K, et al. Prebiopsy multiparametric 3 T prostate MRI in patients with elevated PSA, normal digital rectal examination, and no previous biopsy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014. doi:10.1002/jmri.24682.

42.

Gupta RT, Faridi KF, Singh AA, Passoni NM, Garcia-Reyes K, Madden JF, et al. Comparing 3-T multiparametric MRI and the Partin tables to predict organ-confined prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2014;32(8):1292–9. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.04.017.CrossRefPubMed

43.•

Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A, Ciardi A, Indino EL, Papalia R, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. standard care in men being evaluated for prostate cancer: a randomized study. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(1):17–e1-7. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.09.013. Largest randomized study to date assessing the mpMRI/MRGB pathway vs standard of care found a higher detection of clinically significant cancer utilizing the mpMRI/MRGB pathway supported by a 97% accuracy of mpMRI for detecting PCa.

44.••

Muller BG, Futterer JJ, Gupta RT, Katz A, Kirkham A, Kurhanewicz J, et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in focal therapy for prostate cancer: recommendations from a consensus panel. BJU Int. 2014;113(2):218–27. doi:10.1111/bju.12243. Expert consensus panel recommendations on the utilization of mpMRI in FT for patient selection, planning and follow-up.

45.

Borkowetz A, Platzek I, Toma M, Laniado M, Baretton G, Froehner M, et al. Comparison of systematic transrectal biopsy to transperineal MRI/ultrasound-fusion biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2014. doi:10.1111/bju.13023.PubMed

46.

Smeenge M, Barentsz J, Cosgrove D, de la Rosette J, de Reijke T, Eggener S, et al. Role of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a Consensus Panel. BJU Int. 2012;110(7):942–8. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11072.x.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM. Relationship between systematic biopsies and histological features of 222 radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prediction of tumor significance for men with nonpalpable prostate cancer. J Urol. 2001;166(1):104–9. discussion 9–10.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Hambrock T, Hoeks C, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, Scheenen T, Futterer J, Bouwense S, et al. Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. European urology. 2012;61(1):177–84. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2011.08.042.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Baco E, Rud E, Ukimura O, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, Matsugasumi T, et al. Effect of targeted biopsy guided by elastic image fusion of MRI with 3D-TRUS on diagnosis of anterior prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.07.014.PubMed

50.

Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Macairan M, Lieu P, et al. Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol. 2014;65(4):809–15. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.025.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

51.

Hoeks CM, Schouten MG, Bomers JG, Hoogendoorn SP, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Hambrock T, et al. Three-Tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased prostate-specific antigen and repeated, negative, random, systematic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: detection of clinically significant prostate cancers. European urology. 2012;62(5):902–9. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.047.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Franiel T, Stephan C, Erbersdobler A, Dietz E, Maxeiner A, Hell N, et al. Areas suspicious for prostate cancer: MR-guided biopsy in patients with at least one transrectal US-guided biopsy with a negative finding–multiparametric MR imaging for detection and biopsy planning. Radiology. 2011;259(1):162–72. doi:10.1148/radiol.10101251.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Anastasiadis AG, Lichy MP, Nagele U, Kuczyk MA, Merseburger AS, Hennenlotter J, et al. MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate increases diagnostic performance in men with elevated or increasing PSA levels after previous negative TRUS biopsies. Eur Urol. 2006;50(4):738–48. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2006.03.007. discussion 48–9.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Taira AV, Merrick GS, Galbreath RW, Andreini H, Taubenslag W, Curtis R, et al. Performance of transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy in detecting prostate cancer in the initial and repeat biopsy setting. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2010;13(1):71–7. doi:10.1038/pcan.2009.42.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

55.

Merrick GS, Taubenslag W, Andreini H, Brammer S, Butler WM, Adamovich E, et al. The morbidity of transperineal template-guided prostate mapping biopsy. BJU Int. 2008;101(12):1524–9. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07542.x.CrossRefPubMed

56.••

Bomers JG, Barentsz JO. Standardization of multiparametric prostate MR imaging using PI-RADS. BioMed Res Int. 2014;2014:431680. doi:10.1155/2014/431680. This paper introduces and describes PI-RADS and reviews every single parameter of the scoring system. Two patient cases are provided to explain the overall interpretation score in multiparametric imaging.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

57.

Schimmoller L, Quentin M, Arsov C, Hiester A, Kropil P, Rabenalt R, et al. Predictive power of the ESUR scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis verified with targeted MR-guided in-bore biopsy. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(12):2103–8. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.08.006.CrossRefPubMed

58.

Lee T, Mendhiratta N, Sperling D, Lepor H. Focal laser ablation for localized prostate cancer: principles, clinical trials, and our initial experience. Rev Urol. 2014;16(2):55–66.PubMedCentralPubMed

59.

Valerio M, Stricker PD, Ahmed HU, Dickinson L, Ponsky L, Shnier R, et al. Initial assessment of safety and clinical feasibility of irreversible electroporation in the focal treatment of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2014. doi:10.1038/pcan.2014.33.PubMed

60.

Valerio M, Dickinson L, Ali A, Ramachandran N, Donaldson I, Freeman A, et al. A prospective development study investigating focal irreversible electroporation in men with localised prostate cancer: Nanoknife Electroporation Ablation Trial (NEAT). Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;39(1):57–65. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2014.07.006.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

61.

van den Bos W, de Bruin DM, Muller BG, Varkarakis IM, Karagiannis AA, Zondervan PJ, et al. The safety and efficacy of irreversible electroporation for the ablation of prostate cancer: a multicentre prospective human in vivo pilot study protocol. BMJ Open. 2014;4(10), e006382. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006382.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

62.

van den Bos W, Muller BG, de la Rosette JJ. A randomized controlled trial on focal therapy for localized prostate carcinoma: hemiablation versus complete ablation with irreversible electroporation. J Endourol Endourol Soc. 2013;27(3):262–4. doi:10.1089/end.2013.1568.

63.

Nguyen PL, Chen MH, Zhang Y, Tempany CM, Cormack RA, Beard CJ, et al. Updated results of magnetic resonance imaging guided partial prostate brachytherapy for favorable risk prostate cancer: implications for focal therapy. J Urol. 2012;188(4):1151–6. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.06.010.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

64.

Langley S, Ahmed HU, Al-Qaisieh B, Bostwick D, Dickinson L, Veiga FG, et al. Report of a consensus meeting on focal low dose rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2012;109 Suppl 1:7–16. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10825.x.CrossRefPubMed

65.

Cosset JM, Cathelineau X, Wakil G, Pierrat N, Quenzer O, Prapotnich D, et al. Focal brachytherapy for selected low-risk prostate cancers: a pilot study. Brachytherapy. 2013;12(4):331–7. doi:10.1016/j.brachy.2013.02.002.CrossRefPubMed

66.

Riches SF, Payne GS, Desouza NM, Dearnaley D, Morgan VA, Morgan SC, et al. Effect on therapeutic ratio of planning a boosted radiotherapy dose to the dominant intraprostatic tumour lesion within the prostate based on multifunctional MR parameters. Br J Radiol. 2014;87(1037):20130813. doi:10.1259/bjr.20130813.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

67.

Sankineni S, Wood BJ, Rais-Bahrami S, Walton Diaz A, Hoang AN, Pinto PA, et al. Image-guided focal therapy for prostate cancer. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2014;20(6):492–7. doi:10.5152/dir.2014.14134.CrossRefPubMed

68.

Moore CM, Azzouzi AR, Barret E, Villers A, Muir G, Barber N, et al. Determination of optimal drug dose and light dose index to achieve minimally invasive focal ablation of localized prostate cancer using WST11-Vascular Targeted Photodynamic (VTP) therapy. BJU Int. 2014. doi:10.1111/bju.12816.

69.

Ahmed HU, Hindley RG, Dickinson L, Freeman A, Kirkham AP, Sahu M, et al. Focal therapy for localised unifocal and multifocal prostate cancer: a prospective development study. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(6):622–32. doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(12)70121-3.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

70.

Dickinson L, Ahmed H, Kirkham A, Allen C, Freeman A, Barber J, et al. A multi-centre prospective development study evaluating focal therapy using high intensity focused ultrasound for localised prostate cancer: The INDEX study () (). Contemp Clin Trials. 2013;36(1):68–80. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2013.06.005.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

71.

Uchida T, Tomonaga T, Kim H, Nakano M, Shoji S, Nagata Y, et al. Improved outcomes owing to high-intensity focused ultrasound devices version-up for the treatment of patients with localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.096.PubMed

72.

Crouzet S, Chapelon JY, Rouviere O, Mege-Lechevallier F, Colombel M, Tonoli-Catez H, et al. Whole-gland ablation of localized prostate cancer with high-intensity focused ultrasound: oncologic outcomes and morbidity in 1002 patients. Eur Urol. 2014;65(5):907–14. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.04.039.CrossRefPubMed

73.

Thuroff S, Chaussy C. Evolution and outcomes of 3 MHz high intensity focused ultrasound therapy for localized prostate cancer during 15 years. J Urol. 2013;190(2):702–10. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.010.CrossRefPubMed

74.

Berge V, Dickinson L, McCartan N, Hindley RG, Diep LM, Emberton M, et al. Morbidity associated with primary high intensity focused ultrasound and redo high intensity focused ultrasound for localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2014;191(6):1764–9. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.12.036.CrossRefPubMed

75.

Baco E, Gelet A, Crouzet S, Rud E, Rouviere O, Tonoli-Catez H, et al. Hemi salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) in unilateral radiorecurrent prostate cancer: a prospective two-centre study. BJU Int. 2014;114(4):532–40. doi:10.1111/bju.12545.

76.

Kozma P, Lehmann A, Wunderlich K, Michel D, Schumacher S, Ehrentreich-Forster E, et al. A novel handheld fluorescent microarray reader for point-of-care diagnostic. Biosens Bioelectron. 2013;47:415–20. doi:10.1016/j.bios.2013.03.043.CrossRefPubMed

77.

Switz NA, D'Ambrosio MV, Fletcher DA. Low-cost mobile phone microscopy with a reversed mobile phone camera lens. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e95330. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0095330.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

78.

Barqawi AB, Stoimenova D, Krughoff K, Eid K, O’Donnell C, Phillips JM, et al. Targeted focal therapy for the management of organ confined prostate cancer. J Urol. 2014;192(3):749–53. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.03.033.CrossRefPubMed

79.

Bahn D, de Castro Abreu AL, Gill IS, Hung AJ, Silverman P, Gross ME, et al. Focal cryotherapy for clinically unilateral, low-intermediate risk prostate cancer in 73 men with a median follow-up of 3.7 years. Eur Urol. 2012;62(1):55–63. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.03.006.CrossRefPubMed

80.

Li YH, Elshafei A, Agarwal G, Ruckle H, Pow-Sang J, Jones JS. Salvage focal prostate cryoablation for locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy: Initial results from the cryo on-line data registry. Prostate. 2014. doi:10.1002/pros.22881.

81.

Lindner U, Weersink RA, Haider MA, Gertner MR, Davidson SR, Atri M, et al. Image guided photothermal focal therapy for localized prostate cancer: phase I trial. J Urol. 2009;182(4):1371–7. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2009.06.035.CrossRefPubMed

82.

Oto A, Sethi I, Karczmar G, McNichols R, Ivancevic MK, Stadler WM, et al. MR imaging-guided focal laser ablation for prostate cancer: phase I trial. Radiology. 2013;267(3):932–40. doi:10.1148/radiol.13121652.CrossRefPubMed

83.

van den Bos W, Muller BG, Ahmed H, Bangma CH, Barret E, Crouzet S, et al. Focal therapy in prostate cancer: international multidisciplinary consensus on trial design. Eur Urol. 2014;65(6):1078–83. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.001.CrossRefPubMed

84.•

Ahmed HU, Berge V, Bottomley D, Cross W, Heer R, Kaplan R, et al. Can we deliver randomized trials of focal therapy in prostate cancer? Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2014;11(8):482–91. doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.44. This article by the Prostate Cancer RCT Consensus Group is the first to advocate the use of cohort embedded randomized controlled trial design for future focal therapy trials.

85.

Relton C, Torgerson D, O'Cathain A, Nicholl J. Rethinking pragmatic randomised controlled trials: introducing the “cohort multiple randomised controlled trial” design. BMJ (Clinical Research ed). 2010;340:c1066. doi:10.1136/bmj.c1066.CrossRef

Title: Current Trends and New Frontiers in Focal Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer
Authors: Melissa H. Mendez
Daniel Y. Joh
Rajan Gupta
Thomas J. Polascik
Publication date: 01-06-2015
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Current Urology Reports / Issue 6/2015
Print ISSN: 1527-2737
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6285
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-015-0513-y

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Current Trends and New Frontiers in Focal Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2015

Simulation-Based Training in Robot-Assisted Surgery: Current Evidence of Value and Potential Trends for the Future

Practical Tips for Safe and Efficient Robotic Cystectomy

Evaluation and Management of Chronic Scrotal Content Pain

The Evolution of Vasectomy Reversal

Is Frozen Section Analysis of Ureteral Margins at Time of Radical Cystectomy Useful?

The Role of MRI in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer