Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5209_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
40 Мб
Скачать
338
Sexual function
outcome Complications
Oncological
outcome
Median
follow-up
(months)
UTI: 17.5%, perineal
hematoma: 11%,
hematuria: 9.6%,
AUR: 8.5%, pain:
4.5%
No Clavien grade 3
Mild reduction
in sexual score
biopsy positive
NR 35% in-eld
Impairment in
18 21% csPCa at
complications, 43%
required urinary
catheter up to 5 days
EPIC sexual
function
domain at 1
month
compared to
baseline but
recovery at 3
12–18 months:
ineld only
7.1%, outeld
only 10.4%,
in- and
out-eld 3.6%
K. J. Tay et al.
months
Follow-up
protocol
MRI and
Ablation
plan
Focal
Final
demographic
3 + 3: 5 (3.5) 3
Declared
inclusion
criteria
Unilateral
Pre-diagnostic
workup
143 mpMRI +
MRI-guided
biopsy at
baseline; 6
and 18
months
ablation
+ 4: 92 (64.3)
4 + 3: 36
(25.2) 4 + 4:
10 (7)
csPCa– GG2
or more; PSA
< 20 ng/ml;
Targeted
biopsy
mpMRI +
Targeted
biopsy of the
treated zone
and new
Focal
ablation
3 + 4 (68%), 4
+ 3 (18%), 4 +
4 (14%)
GG 2, PSA
<20 ng/ml,
lesion volume
<3ml (single)
or 1.5ml
Targeted
biopsy and
systematic
saturation
28 mpMRI +
targets/
systematic
saturation
(dual)
biopsy
biopsy 12–18
months
Table 28.1 (continued)
Author N
Aker etal.
2023 [52]
Tan etal.
2023
[53]
BCR biochemical recurrence, BPFS biochemical progression-free survival, DRE digital rectal examination, IIEF international index for erectile function, Int. intermediate,
mpMRI multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, NR not reported, NA not applicable, PSA prostate-specic antigen, TRUS transrectal ultrasound, TMB transperineal map-
ping biopsy, FFS freedom-free survival, LUTS lower urinary tract symptoms, GG Gleason Grade Group, SHIM sexual health inventory for men, UTI urinary tract infection, EPIC
expanded prostate cancer index composite, RUF recto-urethral stula, csPCa clinically signicant prostate cancer
28 Focal Cryotherapy
339
Salvage Focal Cryotherapy
Wenske etal. [54] evaluated 55 men treated with focal salvage cryotherapy for radio-recurrent pros­tate cancer. At a median follow-up of 47 months, these authors found the 5-year and 10-year BPFS to be 47% and 42% with favorable side effect pro­les, respectively. In a retrospective comparative study, Abreu et al. [55] studied 50 men treated with either focal or whole gland salvage ablation. They found similar rates of oncological control in both groups with better functional outcomes in focal salvage ablation patients. Similarly, Tan etal. [56] found similar oncological outcomes of focal salvage ablation in comparison to whole gland sal­vage ablation in a large cohort of 385 men. The BPFS rate at two years was 74% with 56% of men who were initially potent having preserved erectile function. The most worrisome complication fol­lowing salvage therapy, RUF, was reported in
1.4% of the cohort (Table28.2).
Surveillance
Follow-up protocols for patients undergoing focal therapy may exhibit variability across dif­ferent centers. These protocols typically encom­pass comprehensive monitoring, including symptom assessment, prostate-specic antigen (PSA) measurements, surveillance imaging, biopsy, and evaluation of urinary and sexual function. A recommended PSA monitoring regi­men involves PSA measurements every three months for the rst year, followed by assessments every six months for the subsequent year, and eventually transitioning to yearly evaluations.
Given the limitations of the traditional deni­tion of recurrence using PSA in cases where a substantial portion of benign glandular tissue remains viable post-focal therapy, PSA kinetics become crucial. Parameters such as PSA nadir value, % PSA, PSA doubling time, and consecu­tive rise should be employed to raise suspicion of recurrence, prompting further evaluation.
The assessment of lower urinary tract function is typically monitored using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), while erectile
function is evaluated through the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) at each visit and at the 1-year mark. In surveillance, cross­sectional imaging followed by a biopsy may be much more informative with regard to cancer recurrence following focal therapy. A mpMRI and biopsy are usually performed at 6–12 months to determine treatment success and for surveil­lance. In a Phase II trial of focal cryoablation undergoing mandatory repeat mpMRI and biopsy 1-year posttreatment, clinically signicant resid­ual cancers were shown to have signicantly more restricted diffusion than nonclinically sig­nicant residual cancer [61].
Future Developments
Future advancements in focal therapy should pri­oritize the development of novel imaging modali­ties to accurately identify and locate index lesions. Improving oncological outcomes can be achieved through advancements in cryotechnol­ogy. Additionally, incorporating adjuvants and/or neoadjuvant therapy can further enhance the effectiveness of focal therapy.
Imaging
While mpMRI is currently the standard of imag­ing for focal therapy, ongoing research is explor­ing new imaging methods for potential improvements in the future. Concerns about rely­ing solely on MRI for disease localization, which may underestimate tumor volume, have led to efforts to integrate nuclear imaging. Recent stud­ies have evaluated the combination of mpMRI and 18F-choline PET/CT for tumor segmentation accuracy, revealing a decrease in mean underesti­mated tumor volume [62]. Additionally, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT detected cancer in 55% of patients with equivocal MRI results or those con­traindicated for MRI [63]. Other novel imaging modalities, such as a 7 T MRI and contrast­enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), might be useful in tumor assessment to determine focal therapy suc­cess. However, further research is needed to assess their role in focal therapy patient selection and treatment planning.
340
Continence rate:
87%, LUTS: 16,
urinary
retention-2,
RUF-1, urethral
sloughing-2
No incontinence
Urinary retention:
6, RUF: 3,
continence rate:
94.5%
K. J. Tay et al.
(continued)
Sexual
function
outcomes Complications
Oncological
outcome
Median
follow-up
(months)
Follow-up
protocol
Ablation
plan
:
a
Ability to
penetrate
14%
2-years:
72%; 5
years: 54%
33, mean BPFS:
assessment and
PSA at 6 weeks,
q3 months for
Focal Clinical
rst year,
6-monthly
thereafter
MRI and
Biopsy—for
Ability to
31 (4–90) BPFS:
cause
PSA and TRUS
Hemi-
a
:
penetrate
28%
5-years:
54.4%
at 3,6, and 12
months; biopsy
at 6, 12, 24, and
60 months
ablation
NR RUF: 3, BOO: 1
BPFS: 5
years: 47%;
Ability to
10 years: 42
(1.6–230.5)
Partial NR 15 BPFS: 2
:
a
penetrate
50%
years: 80%
5 years:
46.5%
Final
Declared inclusion
Pre-diagnostic
Table 28.2 Summary of published focal salvage cryotherapy series
demographic
<6–30 (30),
7–33 (33),
>8–37 (37)
criteria
Biopsy-proven
radio recurrent
prostate cancer,
workup
MRI +TMB
100 Bone scan +
Author N
Ismail
etal. 2007
[57]
nonmetastatic
<6–5 (20),
7–14 (56),
>8–6 (24)
Biopsy-proven
radio recurrent
prostate cancer,
nonmetastatic
plus bone scan
plus MRI/CT
25 TRUS biopsy
Abreu
etal. 2013
[55]
NR Focal NR 47
Biopsy-proven
radio recurrent
prostate cancer,
nonmetastatic
bone scan +
MRI/CT
55 TRUS biopsy +
Wenske
etal. 2013
[54]
<6–41 (45),
7–30 (33),
>8–16 (17.6),
unknown: 12
Radio recurrent
PCa,
nonmetastatic
91 NR Biopsy-proven
Li etal.
2014 [58]
(4.4)
28 Focal Cryotherapy
Urinary retention:
5.6%, RUF: 1.4
341
Sexual
function
outcomes Complications
Oncological
outcome
Median
follow-up
(months)
Follow-up
protocol
Ablation
plan
Final
demographic
NR NR
NR RUF: 1
year: 51%
24 BPFS: 1
and 12 months;
mpMRI at 3, 6,
Focal PSA at 1, 3, 6, 9,
<6–7 (15),
7–17 (36),
>8–16 (34)
NR BPFS: 1
and 12 months;
biopsy for cause
Focal PSA at 1, 3, 6,
<6–22 (35.5),
Erectile
year: 62.6%
and 12 months;
mpMRI at 3, 6,
and 12 months;
biopsy for cause
Partial NR 24.4 BPFS: 2
7–23 (37.1),
>8–10 (16.1)
<6–31 (45.6),
dysfunction:
52.6%
years: 74%
7–26 (38.2),
>8–5 (7.4),
unknown: 6
(8.8)
NR RUF-1
FFS: 40%,
MFS: 50%
Partial NR 12 3 years:
<6–2 (18), 7–6
(54), >8 3
(27%)
Declared inclusion
Pre-diagnostic
Table 28.2 (continued)
criteria
Biopsy-proven
radio recurrent
workup
biopsy
47 MRI + TRUS
Author N
Overduin
etal. 2017
PCa,
nonmetastatic
[59]
Biopsy-proven
radio recurrent
PCa,
nonmetastatic
MRI/CT pelvic
imaging
62 TRUS biopsy +
Bomers
etal. 2020
[60]
Radio recurrent
PCa,
nonmetastatic
72 NR Biopsy-proven
Tan etal.
2020 [56]
Radio recurrent
PCa,
nonmetastatic
11 mpMRI+TMB Biopsy-proven
Tan etal.
2021 [49]
Ability to penetrate reecting men who were potent before salvage therapy
BPFS biochemical progression-free survival, Int. intermediate, PCa prostate cancer, mpMRI multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, NR not reported, NA not applicable,
PSA prostate-specic antigen, TRUS transrectal ultrasound, TMB transperineal mapping biopsy, LUTS lower urinary tract symptoms, GG Gleason Grade Group, UTI urinary tract
infection, RUF rectourethral stula, BOO bladder outlet obstruction, FFS freedom-free survival, MFS metastasis-free survival
a
342
K. J. Tay et al.
Cryotechnology
The eld of cryosurgery has advanced signi­cantly in technology and techniques over the past three decades. Currently, most cryotherapy devices use third-generation technology. Continued efforts are necessary for advance­ments in cryoprobes that could enable faster freezing and thawing, as well as more efcient use of gases that may reduce procedure time and costs. Utilizing articial intelligence in preopera­tive treatment planning, such as assessing the required number and size of cryoprobes and accurately localizing lesions intraoperatively, may prevent tumor persistence in the margins, enhancing oncological outcomes.
Immune Enhancer
Multidisciplinary efforts have spurred rapid growth in the eld of prostate cancer oncology in the last decade. Trials exploring multimodality treatments have improved understanding of the optimal sequencing of radiation, surgery, and systemic modalities, now occurring in tandem rather than in isolation. The eld of breast focal therapy, or “lumpectomy” as breast surgeons term it, began with adjuvant whole-gland treat­ment with irradiation, whereas prostate focal therapy initially relied on “male lumpectomy” alone [64]. As the role of focal therapy extends from treating low-risk to intermediate-risk PCa, continued efforts are necessary to assess the use of neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant agents such as drugs, vaccines, or immunotherapy to improve the oncological outcomes of focal therapy.

References

1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, etal. Global cancer sta­tistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49.
2. Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Walsh E, etal. Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1425–37.
3. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-year outcomes fol­lowing conservative management of clinically local­ized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2005;293(17):2095–101.
4. Johansson JE, Andrén O, Andersson SO, Dickman PW, Holmberg L, Magnuson A, et al. Natural his­tory of early, localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2004;291(22):2713–9.
5. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, Barry MJ, Aronson WJ, Fox S, etal. Radical prostatectomy versus obser­vation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(3):203–13.
6. Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, Jethava V, Zhang L, Jain S, etal. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(3):272–7.
7. Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, Landis P, Wolf S, Trock BJ, etal. Intermediate and longer-term out­comes from a prospective active-surveillance pro­gram for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(30):3379–85.
8. Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A.Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized pros­tate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(1):126–31.
9. Dall'Era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C, Carroll PR, Carter HB, Cooperberg MR, etal. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the litera­ture. Eur Urol. 2012;62(6):976–83.
10. Tay KJ, Mendez M, Moul JW, Polascik TJ. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: can we modernize contemporary protocols to improve patient selection and outcomes in the focal therapy era? Curr Opin Urol. 2015;25(3):185–90.
11. Arumainayagam N, Ahmed HU, Moore CM, Freeman A, Allen C, Sohaib SA, etal. Multiparametric MR imaging for detection of clinically signicant prostate cancer: a validation cohort study with transperineal template prostate mapping as the reference standard. Radiology. 2013;268(3):761–9.
12. Gage AA, Baust J. Mechanisms of tissue injury in cryosurgery. Cryobiology. 1998;37(3):171–86.
13. Robilotto AT, Baust JM, Van Buskirk RG, Gage AA, Baust JG. Temperature-dependent activation of dif­ferential apoptotic pathways during cryoablation in a human prostate cancer model. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2013;16(1):41–9.
14. Arnott J. Practical illustrations of the remedial ef­cacy of a very low or anaesthetic temperature in can­cer. West J Med Surg. 1851;7(2):154–60.
15. Cooper IS. Cryobiology as viewed by the surgeon. Cryobiology. 1964;51:44–51.
16. Megalli MR, Gursel EO, Veenema RJ. Closed peri­neal cryosurgery in prostatic cancer. New probe and technique. Urology. 1974;4(2):220–2.
17. Onik G, Cobb C, Cohen J, Zabkar J, Portereld B. US characteristics of frozen prostate. Radiology. 1988;168(3):629–31.
18. Donnelly BJ, Saliken JC, Ali-Ridha N, Rewcastle JC, White LJ. Histological ndings in the prostate two years following cryosurgical ablation. Can J Urol. 2001;8(2):1237–9.
19. Vellet AD, Saliken J, Donnelly B, Raber E, McLaughlin RF, Wiseman D, et al. Prostatic cryo-
28 Focal Cryotherapy
343
surgery: use of MR imaging in evaluation of suc­cess and technical modications. Radiology. 1997;203(3):653–9.
20. Cespedes RD, Pisters LL, von Eschenbach AC, McGuire EJ. Long-term followup of incontinence and obstruction after salvage cryosurgical abla­tion of the prostate: results in 143 patients. J Urol. 1997;157(1):237–40.
21. Wong WS, Chinn DO, Chinn M, Chinn J, Tom WL, Tom WL.Cryosurgery as a treatment for pros­tate carcinoma: results and complications. Cancer. 1997;79(5):963–74.
22. 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. 2015;67(4):771–7.
23. Tay KJ, Villers A, Polascik TJ.Targeted anterior gland focal therapy-a novel treatment option for a better dened disease. Curr Urol Rep. 2016;17(10):69.
24. Tay KJ, Polascik TJ.Focal cryotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Arch Esp Urol. 2016;69(6):317–26.
25. Kotamarti S, Polascik TJ.Focal cryotherapy for pros­tate cancer: a contemporary literature review. Ann Transl Med. 2023;11(1):26.
26. Onik G, Vaughan D, Lotenfoe R, Dineen M, Brady J.The “male lumpectomy”: focal therapy for prostate cancer using cryoablation results in 48 patients with at least 2-year follow-up. Urol Oncol. 2008;26(5):500–5.
27. Truesdale MD, Cheetham PJ, Hruby GW, Wenske S, Conforto AK, Cooper AB, etal. An evaluation of patient selection criteria on predicting progression- free survival after primary focal unilateral nerve- sparing cryoablation for prostate cancer: recommendations for follow up. Cancer J. 2010;16(5):544–9.
28. 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.
29. Ward JF, Jones JS. Focal cryotherapy for local­ized prostate cancer: a report from the national cryo on-line database (COLD) registry. BJU Int. 2012;109(11):1648–54.
30. Hale Z, Miyake M, Palacios DA, Rosser CJ.Focal cryosurgical ablation of the prostate: a single insti­tute’s perspective. BMC Urol. 2013;13:2.
31. Barqawi AB, Stoimenova D, Krughoff K, Eid K, O’Donnell C, Phillips JM, etal. Targeted focal ther­apy for the management of organ conned prostate cancer. J Urol. 2014;192(3):749–53.
32. Durand M, Barret E, Galiano M, Rozet F, Sanchez­Salas R, Ahallal Y, etal. Focal cryoablation: a treat­ment option for unilateral low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2014;113(1):56–64.
33. Lian H, Zhuang J, Yang R, Qu F, Wang W, Lin T, et al. Focal cryoablation for unilateral low­intermediate- risk prostate cancer: 63-month mean follow-up results of 41 patients. Int Urol Nephrol. 2016;48(1):85–90.
34. Mendez MH, Passoni NM, Pow-Sang J, Jones JS, Polascik TJ.Comparison of outcomes between pre-
operatively potent men treated with focal versus whole gland cryotherapy in a matched population. J Endourol. 2015;29(10):1193–8.
35. Kongnyuy M, Lipsky MJ, Islam S, Robins DJ, Hager S, Halpern DM, etal. Predictors of biochemical recur­rence after primary focal cryosurgery (hemiablation) for localized prostate cancer: a multi-institutional analytic comparison of Phoenix and Stuttgart criteria. Urol Oncol. 2017;35(8):530.
36. Tay KJ, Polascik TJ, Elshafei A, Tsivian E, Jones JS. Propensity score-matched comparison of partial to whole-gland cryotherapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer: an analysis of the cryo on-line data registry data. J Endourol. 2017;31(6):564–71.
37. Elshafei A, Tay KJ, Kara O, Malkoc E, Nyame Y, Arora H, etal. Associations between prostate volume and oncologic outcomes in men undergoing focal cryoablation of the prostate. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2018;16(2):e477–e82.
38. Kongnyuy M, Islam S, Mbah AK, Halpern DM, Werneburg GT, Kosinski KE, etal. PSA kinetics fol­lowing primary focal cryotherapy (hemiablation) in organ-conned prostate cancer patients. World J Urol. 2018;36(2):209–13.
39. Werneburg GT, Kongnyuy M, Halpern DM, Salcedo JM, Chen C, LeSueur A, etal. Effects of focal vs total cryotherapy and minimum tumor temperature on patient-reported quality of life compared with active surveillance in patients with prostate cancer. Urology. 2018;113:110–8.
40. Inoue Y, Ushijima S, Shiraishi T, Fujihara A, Hongo F, Ukimura O.Biochemical and magnetic resonance image response in targeted focal cryotherapy to ablate targeted biopsy-proven index lesion of prostate can­cer. Int J Urol. 2019;26(2):317–9.
41. Bakavicius A, Sanchez-Salas R, Muttin F, Sivaraman A, Dell’Oglio P, Barret E, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of focal therapy complications in pros­tate cancer: a standardized methodology. J Endourol. 2019;33(7):509–15.
42. Shah TT, Peters M, Miah S, Eldred-Evans D, Yap T, Hosking-Jervis F, etal. Assessment of return to base­line urinary and sexual function following primary focal cryotherapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Eur Urol Focus. 2021;7(2):301–8.
43. Sze C, Tsivian E, Tay KJ, Schulman AA, Davis LG, Gupta RT, et al. Anterior gland focal cryoablation: proof-of-concept primary prostate cancer treatment in select men with localized anterior cancers detected by multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging. BMC Urol. 2019;19(1):127.
44. Basourakos SP, Al Awamlh AH, Bianco FJ, Patel NA, Laviana A, Margolis DJ, etal. Feasibility of in-ofce MRI-targeted partial gland cryoablation for prostate cancer: an IDEAL stage 2A study. BMJ Surg Interv Health Technol. 2020;2(1):e000056.
45. Bossier R, Sanguedolce F, Territo A, Vanacore D, Martínez C, Regis F, et al. Whole and hemi-gland cryoablation for primary localized prostate cancer: Short and medium-term oncological and functional outcomes. Actas Urol Esp. 2020;44(3):172–8.
344
K. J. Tay et al.
46. Chuang R, Kinnaird A, Kwan L, Sisk A, Barsa D, Felker E, et al. Hemigland cryoablation of clini­cally signicant prostate cancer: intermediate-term followup via magnetic resonance imaging guided biopsy. J Urol. 2020;204(5):941–9.
47. Tourinho-Barbosa RR, Sanchez-Salas R, Claros OR, Collura-Merlier S, Bakavicius A, Carneiro A, et al. Focal therapy for localized prostate can­cer with either high intensity focused ultrasound or cryoablation: a single institution experience. J Urol. 2020;203(2):320–30.
48. Wysock JS, Becher E, Gogaj R, Velazquez N, Lepor H.Early oncological control following partial gland cryo-ablation: a prospective experience specify­ing reex MRI guided biopsy of the ablation zone. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021;24(1):114–9.
49. Tan WP, Chang A, Sze C, Polascik TJ. Oncological and functional outcomes of patients undergoing indi­vidualized partial gland cryoablation of the pros­tate: a single-institution experience. J Endourol. 2021;35(9):1290–9.
50. Marra G, Soeterik T, Oreggia D, Tourinho-Barbosa R, Moschini M, Filippini C, etal. Long-term outcomes of focal cryotherapy for low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer: results and matched pair analysis with active surveillance. Eur Urol Focus. 2022;8(3):701–9.
51. Baskin A, Charondo LB, Balakrishnan A, Cowan JE, Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR, etal. Medium term outcomes of focal cryoablation for intermediate and high risk prostate cancer: MRI and PSA are not pre­dictive of residual or recurrent disease. Urol Oncol. 2022;40(10):451.
52. Aker MN, Brisbane WG, Kwan L, Gonzalez S, Priester AM, Kinnaird A, etal. Cryotherapy for par­tial gland ablation of prostate cancer: oncologic and safety outcomes. Cancer Med. 2023;12(8):9351–62.
53. Tan YG, Law YM, Ngo NT, Khor LY, Tan PH, Ong EHW, et al. Patient-reported functional outcomes and oncological control after primary focal cryo­therapy for clinically signicant prostate cancer: a phase II mandatory biopsy-monitored study. Prostate. 2023;83(8):781–91.
54. Wenske S, Quarrier S, Katz AE.Salvage cryosurgery of the prostate for failure after primary radiotherapy or cryosurgery: long-term clinical, functional, and oncologic outcomes in a large cohort at a tertiary referral centre. Eur Urol. 2013;64(1):1–7.
55. de Castro Abreu AL, Bahn D, Leslie S, Shoji S, Silverman P, Desai MM, et al. Salvage focal and salvage total cryoablation for locally recurrent pros-
tate cancer after primary radiation therapy. BJU Int. 2013;112(3):298–307.
56. Tan WP, ElShafei A, Aminshari A, Khalifa AO, Polascik TJ.Salvage focal cryotherapy offers similar short-term oncologic control and improved urinary function compared with salvage whole gland cryo­therapy for radiation-resistant or recurrent prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2020;18(3):e260.
57. Ismail M, Ahmed S, Kastner C, Davies J.Salvage cryotherapy for recurrent prostate cancer after radia­tion failure: a prospective case series of the rst 100 patients. BJU Int. 2007;100(4):760–4.
58. Li YH, Elshafei A, Agarwal G, Ruckle H, Powsang J, Jones JS. Salvage focal prostate cryoablation for locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy: initial results from the cryo on-line data registry. Prostate. 2015;75(1):1–7.
59. Overduin CG, Jenniskens SFM, Sedelaar JPM, Bomers JGR, Fütterer JJ. Percutaneous MR-guided focal cryoablation for recurrent prostate cancer following radiation therapy: retrospective analy­sis of iceball margins and outcomes. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(11):4828–36.
60. Bomers JGR, Overduin CG, Jenniskens SFM, Cornel EB, van Lin E, Sedelaar JPM, et al. Focal salvage MR imaging-guided cryoablation for localized pros­tate cancer recurrence after radiotherapy: 12-month follow-up. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2020;31(1):35–41.
61. Velaga J, Tay KJ, Hang G, Tan YG, Yuen JS, Chua M, et al. Surveillance one year post focal cryother­apy for clinically signicant prostate cancer using mpMRI and PIRADS v2.1: an initial experience from a prospective phase II mandatory biopsy study. Eur J Radiol Open. 2023;11:100529.
62. Piert M, Shankar PR, Montgomery J, Kunju LP, Rogers V, Siddiqui J, et al. Accuracy of tumor seg­mentation from multi-parametric prostate MRI and (18)F-choline PET/CT for focal prostate cancer ther­apy applications. EJNMMI Res. 2018;8(1):23.
63. Lopci E, Saita A, Lazzeri M, Lughezzani G, Colombo P, Buf NM, etal. (68)Ga-PSMA positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for primary diagnosis of prostate cancer in men with contraindi­cations to or negative multiparametric magnetic reso­nance imaging: a prospective observational study. J Urol. 2018;200(1):95–103.
64. Labbate CV, Klotz L, Morrow M, Cooperberg M, Esserman L, Eggener SE.Focal therapy for prostate cancer: evolutionary parallels to breast cancer treat­ment. J Urol. 2023;209(1):49–57.
Irreversible Electroporation forPartial Gland Ablation: Clinical Application andOutcomes
JonathanFainberg, JonathanColeman, GiancarloMarra, PhillipStricker, andNathanLawrentschuk
29

Background

When performing focal therapy for the treatment of primary localized prostate cancer, a surgeon may have access to many tools in their arsenal, and the selection of the appropriate energy modality is crucial to a successful outcome. From afar, these energies may be divided into two cat­egories: thermal versus athermal. Thermal ener­gies such as cryoablation, lasers, and
J. Fainberg · J. Coleman Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA e-mail: fainberj@mskcc.org; colemanj@mskcc.org
G. Marra Department of Surgical Sciences, Molinette Hospital, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza and University of Turin, Turin, Italy e-mail: giancarlo.marra@unito.it
P. Stricker Urology Department, St. Vincent’s Hospital, St. Vincent’s Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia
Garvan Institute of Medical Research and Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia
St. Vincent’s Clinical School, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia e-mail: phillip@stricker.com.au
N. Lawrentschuk (*) Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
Urology Unit, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia
high-intensity-focused ultrasound (HIFU) use temperature to kill prostate cells, whereas ather­mal energies such as electroporation and photo­dynamic therapy use alternate means to destroy tissue and offer other potential advantages due to the athermal nature of the cellular destruction. As such, there is great enthusiasm for studying and deploying these athermal energies in the arma­mentarium of a focal therapy practice, as for the right patient, they can be crucial.

Energy Principles: Basic Science

Irreversible electroporation (IRE) uses electrical pulses between electrodes to create pores in the cell membrane, leading to apoptosis and cell death. In the treatment of prostate cancer, the electrodes are placed transperineally to surround the targeted tumor lesion with a safety margin, and high-voltage electrical pulses are delivered to induce cell wall permeability.
High voltage electrical pulses (HVEPs) have been applied in several soft tissue tumors as these HVEPs cause cell death by inducing membrane disruption, transiently increasing cell membrane permeability. In other malignancies, this can be applied to assist in the transient uptake of cyto­toxic drugs into tumor cells or used to induce an immune response that can be augmented with immunomodulatory drugs, referred to as electro­immunotherapy. The immunogenic effects of
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 T. J. Polascik et al. (eds.), Imaging and Focal Therapy of Early Prostate Cancer,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-66754-1_29
345
346
J. Fainberg et al.
IRE appear to outperform those of other ablative techniques [1] and can be enhanced in combina­tion with immune-stimulating agents [2].
While in 1754, it was reported that electrical sparks on human skin induce redness, it was not until the middle of the twentieth century that electrical pulses were investigated to aid in human health. Initially used as a means to steril­ize food and liquids, in the 1950s, research focused on the effect of electrical pulses on cell membranes. In 1967, it was demonstrated that the cell death induced by IRE was not related to ther­mal changes but rather a result of electric current [3]. Five years later, the term electroporation was coined after observing that the cellular mem­brane permeability was temporary at low volt­ages and the permeability reversed with time; a process known as reversible electroporation [4]. Since that time, electroporation has been used in oncology: electrochemotherapy uses reversible electroporation to allow for cytotoxic agents to pass into malignant cells [5], gene electro­transfer uses electroporation to assist in vitro DNA transfers [6], and electrofusion uses elec­troporation to assist in cell-to-cell fusion [7].
At a cellular level, the cell membrane consists of a dielectric phospholipid bilayer that surrounds the conductive body of the cell (the cytoplasm and cellular structures) to maintain a resting potential necessary for maintaining cellular integrity. Electric elds interact with the cell membrane by altering the permeability by inducing hydrophilic pores in the lipid bilayer. If HVEPs are applied to the cellular membrane, the external electric eld alters the resting potential across the cell mem­brane [8]. If accumulated electric potential exceeds a critical value, the membrane becomes unstable, forming defects in the lipid bilayer. These defects, or pores, happen when water gets into the lipid bilayer and alters the orientation of adjacent lipids; as these lipids rearrange, the pres­ence of pores (electroporation) increases, and molecules, such as water, ions, and small proteins, that typically would not penetrate the cell mem­brane now can pass via these pores [9].
Electroporation can be either reversible or irre­versible, depending on whether the membrane permeability is transient or permanent. Reversible
electroporation is when the cell is able to regain homeostasis post-ablation, whereas in IRE the magnitude and duration of the electrical pulses are too great for the cell to adapt and repair, result­ing in cellular death. Electrical eld strength and treatment duration determine whether the electro­poration is reversible or irreversible [10].
An additional identied tissue effect produced by electroporation is modulation of blood ow to adjacent tissue. This transiently results in a decrease of blood ow via direct vasoconstriction resulting from electrical stimulation of the pre­capillary smooth muscle cells, as well as an increase in vascular resistance by altering the endothelial cell-to-cell junctions [11]. This diminished vascular ow can be useful as it decreases the speed at which oxidative stressors can be washed out which may augment tissue ablative effects and reduces bleeding when inva­sive needle electrodes are utilized.
Given that IRE is a focal ablative technique used to treat solid-organ tumors, the technical aspects of producing this form of ablation are cru­cial to oncologic success. Understanding the mechanism of IRE-based tissue ablation requires applying principles of delivering electrical energy uniformly and effectively to the targeted tissue. Importantly, IRE not only works to permanently damage cell membranes within the tissue, but due to its nonthermal and somewhat selective effects, preservation of extracellular macromolecules, connective tissue architecture, and larger blood vessels can maintain the structure of organ colla­gen scaffolds, vascularity, and peptides. These features have supported the considered safety for the use of IRE near sensitive anatomic sites such as the urethra, rectum, nerves, large blood vessels, and ducts of vital organs, similar to its common applications during pancreatic or liver ablations. This has been reported in animal models where vital structures have been preserved after IRE: solitary blood vessels remained unchanged 24 h post-ablation, and while perivascular brosis sand changes were noted, the vessels remained intact up to 35 days posttreatment [12]. These factors and the ability of IRE to spare critical structures are among the reasons IRE is used to treat some complex liver and pancreatic masses.
29 Irreversible Electroporation forPartial Gland Ablation: Clinical Application andOutcomes
347
Lastly, although IRE is considered nonther­mal, IRE can induce thermal damage if the energy is applied too quickly. This thermal dam­age is largest in the immediate vicinity of the electrodes and typically is from high current den­sity, noting the structural complications post-IRE are frequently the result of undesirable thermal effects [13]. This is particularly true in tissue that may be compromised from prior therapies—such as radiation. Such features highlight the care and planning needed during probe placement for delivering IRE treatment to avoid having probes in the vicinity of sensitive structures while still maintaining adequate tissue contact for uniform electrical conduction to take place.
Technical Considerations forIRE Treatment oftheProstate
During an IRE procedure to treat the prostate, including cancer-bearing tissue, the patient is typically placed in the high lithotomy position after induction of general anesthesia. It is very important to note that during the delivery of IRE pulses, the patient must be under complete paral­ysis conditions. However, for much of the case, before the active treatment portion, paralysis is unnecessary. A transrectal ultrasound probe is placed to visualize the prostate and the desired site for tissue ablation, inclusive of the region of tumor location. The surgeon determines the vol­ume, measured region, size, and planned margin needed and mapped out by the operator to pro­vide a treatment plan for probe placement. Needle electrodes are placed via the perineum, typically with a stereotactic technique, to orient the probes in a conguration around the border of the planned ablation zone. Electrodes should be maintained as parallel as possible to each other to aid in producing a uniform treatment eld. Additionally, the surgeon controls the exposed length of each electrode using a sliding insulation cover integrated into the probe device, which can be adjusted manually after electrode placement. A minimum of two electrodes are needed to induce a sufcient electric eld, but practically, when treating a region of prostate tumor within
the gland, however focal, a minimum of three electrodes are utilized, and most experienced sur­geons utilize 4 or more. Electrode placement should be between 8 and 24 mm of distance between each probe of one and other. However, it is likely that the “sweet spot” for treatment plan­ning should utilize 10–20 mm to account for placement errors, and avoidance of unwanted thermal effects is closer to 10–20mm in distance. Probe congurations may vary to dene an appropriate ablation zone to encapsulate the tumor cells within the prostate. While triangular congurations are common with three probes, as the number of probes increases, the possibilities for expanding the ablation zone also increase.
Before ablation, distance from critical struc­tures should be noted: while it is the policy of the machine recommendation to be at least 5 mm from critical structures, in everyday practice 3mm distance from the rectum is considered suf­cient if maneuvers to mobilize the rectum away from the probe are unsuccessful (i.e., reducing ultrasound probe pressure on the rectal wall, injection of water or glycine solution between the rectal wall and prostate, etc.). In carefully selected situations, ablation across the urethra is theoretically possible, noting the limited harm experienced by vasculature vital structures in the pancreas and liver [14], though extrapolation from this data to the prostatic urethra should be done with caution. Most such cross-urethral cases are performed in the presence of a urethral catheter in place. Furthermore, ablation, includ­ing the urethra in the primary setting, has not resulted in sloughing or urethral strictures in intermediate-term clinical outcomes [15].
Before initiation of electroporation treatment, it is crucial to ensure the patient is paralyzed with zero twitches, as an unparalyzed patient can expe­rience signicant issues with cellular repolariza­tion during the administration of electric pulses of such magnitude, producing muscle contractions in the pelvis, risking probe displacement and potential injury. Unlike procedures performed near the diaphragm—pancreas and liver abla­tions—for pelvic procedures with IRE, it is not necessary to sync the electric pulses with the patient’s EKG, as the distance of the pelvic organs