Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Urology Reports
Published in: Current Urology Reports 10/2023

08-07-2023 | Prostate Cancer

Real-Time and Delayed Imaging of Tissue and Effects of Prostate Tissue Ablation

Authors: Shima Tayebi, Sadhna Verma, Abhinav Sidana

Published in: Current Urology Reports | Issue 10/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Prostate ablation is increasingly being utilized for the management of localized prostate cancer. There are several energy modalities with varying mechanism of actions which are currently used for prostate ablation. Prostate ablations, whether focal or whole gland, are performed under ultrasound and/or MRI guidance for appropriate treatment plan execution and monitoring. A familiarity with different intraoperative imaging findings and expected tissue response to these ablative modalities is paramount. In this review, we discuss the intraoperative, early, and delayed imaging findings in prostate from the effects of prostate ablation.

Recent Findings

The monitoring of ablation both during and after the therapy became increasingly important due to the precise targeting of the target tissue. Recent findings suggest that real-time imaging techniques such as MRI or ultrasound can provide anatomical and functional information, allowing for precise ablation of the targeted tissue and increasing the effectiveness and precision of prostate cancer treatment. While intraprocedural imaging findings are variable, the follow-up imaging demonstrates similar findings across various energy modalities.

Summary

MRI and ultrasound are two of the frequently used imaging techniques for intraoperative monitoring and temperature mapping of important surrounding structures. Follow-up imaging can provide valuable information about ablated tissue, including the success of the ablation, presence of residual cancer or recurrence after the ablation. It is critical and helpful to understand the imaging findings during the procedure and at different follow-up time periods to evaluate the procedure and its outcome.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Li Q, Xiang F, Lin X, Grajo JR, Yang L, Xu Y, et al. The role of imaging in prostate cancer care pathway: novel approaches to urologic management challenges along 10 imaging touch points. Urology. 2018;01(119):23–31.CrossRef
2.
Calio B, Kasson M, Sugano D, Ortman M, Gaitonde K, Verma S, et al. Multiparametric MRI: an opportunity for focal therapy of prostate cancer. Semin Roentgenol. 2018;53(3):227–33.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Berends J, Dupati A, Dibianco J, George AK. Focal therapy is a viable treatment for low-risk prostate cancer. J Endourol. 2021;35(9):1281–3.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Hayes M, Lin-Brande M, Isharwal S. Primary focal therapy for localized prostate cancer: a review of the literature. Oncology (Williston Park). 2021;35(5):261–8. PubMedCrossRef
5.
6.
Connor MJ, Gorin MA, Ahmed HU, Nigam R. Focal therapy for localized prostate cancer in the era of routine multi-parametric MRI. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020;23(2):232–43.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Perera M, Krishnananthan N, Lindner U, Lawrentschuk N. An update on focal therapy for prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol. 2016;13(11):641–53.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Beyer LP, Wiggermann P. Treatment planning, needle insertion, image guidance, and endpoint assessment. Irreversible Electroporation in Clinical Practice: Springer; 2018. p. 115–120.
9.
Zhang X, Landgraf L, Bailis N, Unger M, Jochimsen TH, Melzer A. Image-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound, a novel application for interventional nuclear medicine? J Nucl Med. 2021;62(9):1181–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
• Napoli A, Alfieri G, Scipione R, Leonardi A, Fierro D, Panebianco V, et al. High-intensity focused ultrasound for prostate cancer. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2020;17(5):427–33. This paper highlights the importance of focal therapy of prostate cancer and review HIFU as a frequently used treatment method. It thoroughly explains the procedures, the mechanism of action, candidate, the potential risks and side effects, and clinical outcomes. Given the increasing use and advancement of focal therapy in treating prostate cancer, this article provides a comprehensive understanding of the HIFU procedure.
11.
Chapelon J, Rouvière O, Crouzet S, Gelet A. Prostate focused ultrasound therapy. Ther Ultrasound. 2016:21–41.
12.
Seggie DA, Doherty GM, Leeman S, Ferrari LA. Ultrasonic imaging using the instantaneous frequency of pulse-echo signals. Acoust Imaging. 1985:487–496.
13.
Halliwell M. A tutorial on ultrasonic physics and imaging techniques. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H J Eng Med. 2010;224(2):127–42.CrossRef
14.
Senneville BDD, Moonen C, Ries M. MRI-guided HIFU methods for the ablation of liver and renal cancers. Ther Ultrasound. 2016:43–63.
15.
Chen WH, Sanghvi NT, Carlson R, Uchida T. Real‐time tissue change monitoring on the Sonablate® 500 during high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) treatment of prostate cancer. AIP Conf Proc. 2011;1359(1):391–396. American Institute of Physics
16.
Chen WH, Sanghvi NT, Carlson R, Schatzl G, Marberger M. Validation of tissue change monitoring (TCM) on the Sonablate® 500 during high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) treatment of prostate cancer with real-time thermometry. In AIP Conf Proc. 2012;1481(1):53–58. American Institute of Physics.
17.
Shoji S, Koizumi N, Yuzuriha S, Kano T, Ogawa T, Nakano M, et al. Development and future prospective of treatment for localized prostate cancer with high-intensity focused ultrasound. J Med Ultrason. 2022.
18.
Yee CH, Chiu PK, Teoh JY, Ng CF, Chan CK, Hou SM. High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) focal therapy for localized prostate cancer with MRI-US fusion platform. Adv Urol. 2021;14(2021):7157973.
19.
Shoji S, Hiraiwa S, Uemura K, Nitta M, Hasegawa M, Kawamura Y, et al. Focal therapy with high-intensity focused ultrasound for the localized prostate cancer for Asian based on the localization with MRI-TRUS fusion image-guided transperineal biopsy and 12-cores transperineal systematic biopsy: prospective analysis of oncological and functional outcomes. Int J Clin Oncol. 2020;25(10):1844–53.PubMedCrossRef
20.
•• Bui T, Glavis-Bloom J, Chahine C, Mehta R, Wolfe T, Bhatter P, et al. Prostate minimally invasive procedures: complications and normal vs. abnormal findings on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Abdom Radiol. 2021;46(9):4388–4400. This article holds significant importance and serves a valuable purpose. It gives insight into focal therapy modalities of prostate cancer in addition to investigating the impact of mpMRI in evaluating and detecting complications and abnormal findings after focal therapy of the prostate. The study emphasizes the importance of using mpMRI to guide clinical decisions and improve patient outcomes and highlights the need for standardized protocols for interpreting and reporting mpMRI findings in these patients.
21.
Kirkham AP, Emberton M, Hoh IM, Illing RO, Freeman AA, Allen C. MR imaging of prostate after treatment with high-intensity focused ultrasound. Radiology. 2008;246(3):833–44.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Apfelbeck M, Chaloupka M, Schlenker B, Stief CG, Clevert DA. Follow-up after focal therapy of the prostate with high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) using contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in combination with MRI image fusion. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2019;73(1):135–43.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Muller BG, Van den Bos W, Brausi M, Fütterer JJ, Ghai S, Pinto PA, et al. Follow-up modalities in focal therapy for prostate cancer: results from a Delphi consensus project. World J Urol. 2015;33:1503–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
Huang H, Zhu ZQ, Zhou ZG, Chen LS, Zhao M, Zhang Y, et al. Contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasound for prediction of prostate cancer aggressiveness: the role of normal peripheral zone time-intensity curves. Sci Rep. 2016;08(6):38643.CrossRef
25.
de Castro Abreu AL, Ashrafi AN, Gill IS, Oishi M, Winter MW, Park D, et al. Contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasound for follow-up after focal HIFU ablation for prostate cancer. J Ultrasound Med. 2019;38(3):811–9.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Apfelbeck M, Clevert DA, Ricke J, Stief C, Schlenker B. Contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) with MRI image fusion for monitoring focal therapy of prostate cancer with high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU)1. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2018;69(1–2):93–100.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Woodrum DA, Kawashima A, Gorny KR, Mynderse LA. Prostate cancer: state of the art imaging and focal treatment. Clin Radiol. 2017;72(8):665–79.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Siedek F, Yeo SY, Heijman E, Grinstein O, Bratke G, Heneweer C, Puesken M, Persigehl T, Maintz D, Grüll H. Magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU): technical background and overview of current clinical applications (part 1). InRöFo-Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Röntgenstrahlen und der bildgebenden Verfahren 2019;191(6):522–530. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG.
29.
Mihcin S, Melzer A. Principles of focused ultrasound. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2018;27(1):41–50.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Ghai S, Louis AS, Van Vliet M, Lindner U, Haider MA, Hlasny E, et al. Real-time MRI-guided focused ultrasound for focal therapy of locally confined low-risk prostate cancer: feasibility and preliminary outcomes. Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205(2):W177–84.CrossRef
31.
• Wimper Y, Futterer JJ, Bomers JGR. MR imaging in real time guiding of therapies in prostate cancer. Life (Basel). 2022;12(2). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​life12020302. This article highlights the importance of using MRI as a monitoring and therapeutic technique for prostate cancer and offers insightful information on the most recent advancements in this area. The authors discuss the advantages and limitations of different techniques and emphasize the need for personalized treatment plans for prostate cancer patients, which can only be achieved through the use of advanced imaging techniques like MRI.
32.
33.
Boyes A, Tang K, Yaffe M, Sugar L, Chopra R, Bronskill M. Prostate tissue analysis immediately following magnetic resonance imaging guided transurethral ultrasound thermal therapy. J Urol. 2007;178(3 Pt 1):1080–5.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Larson BT, Collins JM, Huidobro C, Corica A, Vallejo S, Bostwick DG. Gadolinium-enhanced MRI in the evaluation of minimally invasive treatments of the prostate: correlation with histopathologic findings. Urology. 2003;62(5):900–4.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Lodeizen O, de Bruin M, Eggener S, Crouzet S, Ghai S, Varkarakis I, et al. Ablation energies for focal treatment of prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2019;37(3):409–18.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Shah TT, Ahmed H, Kanthabalan A, Lau B, Ghei M, Maraj B, et al. Focal cryotherapy of localized prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2014;14(11):1337–47.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Nguyen HD, Allen BJ, Pow-Sang JM. Focal cryotherapy in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Cancer Control. 2013;20(3):177–80.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Bermejo CE, Pisters LL. Cryotherapy for prostate cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2003;3(3):393–401.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Lau B, Shah TT, Valerio M, Hamid S, Ahmed HU, Arya M. Technological aspects of delivering cryotherapy for prostate cancer. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2015;12(2):183–90.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Gangi A, Tsoumakidou G, Abdelli O, Buy X, de Mathelin M, Jacqmin D, et al. Percutaneous MR-guided cryoablation of prostate cancer: initial experience. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(8):1829–35.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Cornud F, Bomers J, Futterer JJ, Ghai S, Reijnen JS, Tempany C. MR imaging-guided prostate interventional imaging: ready for a clinical use? Diagn Interv Imaging. 2018;99(11):743–53.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Mathew MS, Oto A. MR imaging-guided focal therapies of prostate cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2019;27(1):131–8.PubMedCrossRef
43.
44.
Overduin CG, Bomers JG, Jenniskens SF, Hoes MF, Ten Haken B, de Lange F, et al. T1-weighted MR image contrast around a cryoablation iceball: a phantom study and initial comparison with in vivo findings. Med Phys. 2014;41(11):112301.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Gowardhan B, Greene D. Cryotherapy for the prostate: an in vitro and clinical study of two new developments; advanced cryoneedles and a temperature monitoring system. BJU Int. 2007;100(2):295–302.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Lindner U, Trachtenberg J, Lawrentschuk N. Focal therapy in prostate cancer: modalities, findings and future considerations. Nat Rev Urol. 2010;7(10):562–71.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Kalbhen CL, Hricak H, Shinohara K, Chen M, Parivar F, Kurhanewicz J, et al. Prostate carcinoma: MR imaging findings after cryosurgery. Radiology. 1996;198(3):807–11.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Natarajan S, Jones TA, Priester AM, Geoghegan R, Lieu P, Delfin M, et al. Focal laser ablation of prostate cancer: feasibility of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion for guidance. J Urol. 2017;198(4):839–47.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Werntz RP, Eggener SE. Novel focal therapy treatment options for prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. 2018;28(2):178–83.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Eymerit-Morin C, Zidane M, Lebdai S, Triau S, Azzouzi AR, Rousselet MC. Histopathology of prostate tissue after vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy for localized prostate cancer. Virchows Arch. 2013;463(4):547–52.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Westin C, Chatterjee A, Ku E, Yousuf A, Wang S, Thomas S, et al. MRI findings after MRI-guided focal laser ablation of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;211(3):595–604.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Gaur S, Turkbey B. Prostate MR imaging for posttreatment evaluation and recurrence. Radiol Clin North Am. 2018;56(2):263–75.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Coleman JA, Scardino PT. Targeted prostate cancer ablation: energy options. Curr Opin Urol. 2013;23(2):123–8.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Ting F, Tran M, Böhm M, Siriwardana A, Van Leeuwen PJ, Haynes AM, et al. Focal irreversible electroporation for prostate cancer: functional outcomes and short-term oncological control. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016;19(1):46–52.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Rubinsky L, Guenther E, Mikus P, Stehling M, Rubinsky B. Electrolytic effects during tissue ablation by electroporation. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2016;15(5):NP95–103.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Scheltema MJ, Postema AW, de Bruin DM, Buijs M, Engelbrecht MR, Laguna MP, et al. Irreversible electroporation for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: a summary of imaging findings and treatment feedback. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2017;23(5):365.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
57.
Beyer LP, Pregler B, Verloh N, Brünn K, Haimerl M, Stroszczynski C, et al. Effect of irreversible electroporation of prostate cancer on microcirculation: imaging findings in contrast-enhanced T1-weighted 3D MRI. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2017;67(3–4):399–405.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Real-Time and Delayed Imaging of Tissue and Effects of Prostate Tissue Ablation
Authors
Shima Tayebi
Sadhna Verma
Abhinav Sidana
Publication date
08-07-2023
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Urology Reports / Issue 10/2023
Print ISSN: 1527-2737
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6285
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-023-01175-4