Добавил:
Sekretar
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
X
- •Foreword
- •Preface
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •Imaging
- •Personal Preference
- •Introduction
- •Traditional Radical Therapies
- •Active Surveillance
- •Why Consider Focal Therapy?
- •Cancer Treatment Needs
- •Functional Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •Introduction
- •Focal Therapy Candidates
- •The Index Lesion Theory
- •Further Prospective
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Renal Mass Biopsy
- •Approach
- •Cryoablation
- •Treatment Temperature
- •Radiofrequency Ablation
- •Treatment Temperature
- •Intraoperative Monitoring
- •Cryoablation
- •Radiofrequency Ablation
- •Recommended Imaging Follow-Up Protocol
- •Emerging New Ablative Modalities
- •Microwave Ablation
- •Irreversible Electroporation
- •Radiation Therapy
- •Oncological Outcomes
- •Local Recurrence-Free Survival
- •Overall Survival
- •Cryoablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation
- •Complications
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Informed Consent
- •Why Focal Therapy?
- •References
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Prostate MRI
- •Robotic Surgery
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Decipher
- •Oncotype DX
- •Prolaris
- •Limitations
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Background
- •Androgen Manipulation
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Genomic Biomarkers
- •Genomic Heterogeneity
- •Targeted Biopsy Outcomes
- •Outcomes After Active Surveillance
- •Outcomes After Radical Prostatectomy
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Early Prostate MRI Consensus Meetings
- •PI-RADS v2
- •PI-RADS v2.1
- •PI-RADS Vs. Likert Score
- •MRI-Targeted Biopsies
- •Reporting Cancer Recurrence
- •MRI After Focal Therapy
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •MR Segmentation
- •US Segmentation
- •MR-US Registration/Fusion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Ultrasound Elastography
- •Strain Elastography
- •Shear Wave Elastography
- •Patient Factors During FB
- •Discussion
- •Learning Curve
- •Core Number Optimization
- •Transrectal Versus Transperineal
- •Future Directions
- •Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse (ARFI) Imaging
- •Quantitative Ultrasound
- •Micro-Ultrasound
- •Multiparametric Ultrasound
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Multi-Parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Cognitive Fusion
- •In-Bore MRI-Guided Biopsy
- •Software-Based Image Coregistration
- •Registration Algorithms
- •Biopsy Needle Tracking
- •Biopsy Approach
- •Commercial Systems
- •Electromagnetic Tracking
- •Mechanical Position Encoders
- •Image-Based Tracking
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Complications
- •Urinary Retention
- •Bleeding
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Institutional Examples
- •Setting
- •Results
- •Discussion
- •Summary
- •References
- •Introduction
- •PET-Guided Targeted Prostate Biopsy
- •Gallium-68 (68Ga)-Radiolabeled PSMA Ligands
- •Fluorine-18 (18F)-Radiolabeled PSMA Ligands
- •Gastrin-Releasing Peptide Receptor (GRPR)
- •Future Outlook
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Approach
- •Sampling
- •Core Length
- •Histologic Submission
- •BxChip™
- •Reporting Results
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Location: Treatment Factors
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Focal Therapy Nomenclature
- •Nerve-Sparing (Unilateral or Bilateral)
- •Hemi-Ablation
- •Anterior Hockey-Stick Ablation (Anterior Three-Fourth)
- •Posterior Hockey-Stick Ablation (Posterior Three-Fourth)
- •Targeted Focal Therapy
- •Quadrant (Zonal) Ablation
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Cryotherapy
- •Irreversible Electroporation (IRE)
- •Transurethral Ultrasound Ablation (TULSA)
- •High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU)
- •Surgery (Partial Prostatectomy)
- •Evolving Frontiers
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Background
- •Procedure Selection
- •Patients’ Selection
- •Anesthesia
- •Perioperative Protocols
- •Procedure
- •Postoperative Period
- •Outcomes
- •Procedure Feasibility
- •Adverse Events
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Clinical Background
- •Radiotherapy Techniques
- •Clinical Evidence About High-Dose Rate Interventional Radiotherapy (HDR IRT)
- •Clinical Evidence About Low-Dose Rate Interventional Radiotherapy (LDR IRT)
- •Clinical Evidence About Focal External Beam Radiotherapy (ERT)
- •Discussion
- •References
- •28: Focal Cryotherapy
- •Introduction
- •Focal Cryotherapy Procedure
- •Contemporary Focal Cryotherapy Series
- •Primary Focal Cryoablation
- •Salvage Focal Cryotherapy
- •Surveillance
- •Future Developments
- •Imaging
- •Cryotechnology
- •Immune Enhancer
- •References
- •Background
- •Energy Principles: Basic Science
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Early Studies
- •Phase 1 Clinical Trial (“Subtotal” Ablation)
- •Phase II (“TACT”) Clinical Trial (“Whole Gland” Ablation)
- •Patient Selection
- •Preoperative Imaging Planning
- •Intraoperative Considerations
- •Follow-Up Routine Post-Focal TULSA
- •Summary
- •References
- •Vapor 1 Study Results
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Robotic HIFU
- •Safety Features
- •Robotic HIFU Procedure
- •Intraoperative Monitoring
- •Built-in Contrast-Enhanced Transrectal Ultrasound
- •Postoperative Care
- •Follow-up
- •Oncologic Outcomes
- •Functional Outcomes
- •Complications
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Indications
- •Contraindications
- •Preprocedure Workup
- •Technique
- •Outcomes
- •Complications
- •Controversies
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Posttreatment MRI Findings
- •High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU)
- •Focal Laser Ablation (FLA)
- •Irreversible Electroporation (IRE)
- •Focal Cryotherapy (FC)
- •Photodynamic Therapy (PDT)
- •Future Perspectives
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Oncological Outcomes
- •Biochemical Recurrence
- •Functional Outcomes
- •Perioperative Complications
- •Urinary
- •Sexual
- •Bowel
- •Decision Regret
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •36: Assessing Functional Outcomes After Focal Therapy
- •High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU)
- •Cryotherapy
- •Irreversible Electroporation (IRE)
- •Focal Brachytherapy
- •Focal Laser Ablation (FLA)
- •Photodynamic Therapy (PDT)
- •Microwave Ablation
- •Partial Prostatectomy
- •Bipolar Radiofrequency Ablation (bRFA)
- •Prostatic Artery Embolization (PAE)
- •Urinary Function
- •IPSS
- •EPIC
- •ICIQ-SF
- •Erectile Function
- •IIEF
- •EPIC
- •Safety Outcomes
- •Clavien-Dindo
- •CTCAE
- •Physical/Mental Outcomes
- •SF-12
- •Monitoring Patients After Focal Therapy
- •References
- •Introduction
- •PSA Nadir
- •PSA Density
- •Other Molecular Biomarkers
- •Follow-Up Protocols After FT
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Postbrachytherapy Treatment Changes
- •Post High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) Treatment Changes
- •Post Cryotherapy Treatment Changes
- •Post Laser Ablation Changes
- •Post Photodynamic Therapy Changes
- •Post Irreversible Electroporation Changes
- •Interstitial Microwave Thermal Therapy
- •Radiofrequency Ablation
- •References
- •39: Salvage Treatment Following Focal Therapy
- •Introduction
- •Salvage Treatment Modalities
- •Repeat Ablation
- •Salvage Radical Treatment
- •Salvage Radical Prostatectomy
- •Salvage Radiotherapy
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Ensuring Appropriate Quality
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Patient Selection
- •Posttreatment Follow-Up
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Index

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:
ineld only
7.1%, outeld
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
<3ml (single)
or 1.5ml
Targeted
biopsy and
systematic
saturation
28 mpMRI +
targets/
systematic
saturation
(dual)
biopsy
biopsy 12–18
months
Table 28.1 (continued)
Author N
Aker etal.
2023 [52]
Tan etal.
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-specic 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 signicant prostate cancer

28 Focal Cryotherapy
339
Salvage Focal Cryotherapy
Wenske etal. [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 proles, 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 etal.
[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 (Table28.2).
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-specic 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 denition 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 signicant residual cancers were shown to have signicantly
more restricted diffusion than nonclinically signicant 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
etal. 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
etal. 2013
[55]
NR Focal NR 47
Biopsy-proven
radio recurrent
prostate cancer,
nonmetastatic
bone scan +
MRI/CT
55 TRUS biopsy +
Wenske
etal. 2013
[54]
<6–41 (45),
7–30 (33),
>8–16 (17.6),
unknown: 12
Radio recurrent
PCa,
nonmetastatic
91 NR Biopsy-proven
Li etal.
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
etal. 2017
PCa,
nonmetastatic
[59]
Biopsy-proven
radio recurrent
PCa,
nonmetastatic
MRI/CT pelvic
imaging
62 TRUS biopsy +
Bomers
etal. 2020
[60]
Radio recurrent
PCa,
nonmetastatic
72 NR Biopsy-proven
Tan etal.
2020 [56]
Radio recurrent
PCa,
nonmetastatic
11 mpMRI+TMB Biopsy-proven
Tan etal.
2021 [49]
Ability to penetrate reecting 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-specic 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 signicantly 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 efcient
use of gases that may reduce procedure time and
costs. Utilizing articial 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. Multiparametric MR
imaging for detection of clinically signicant 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 efcacy 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, Portereld
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 modications. 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, etal. 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
dened 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, etal. 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, etal. Targeted focal therapy for the management of organ conned prostate
cancer. J Urol. 2014;192(3):749–53.
32. Durand M, Barret E, Galiano M, Rozet F, SanchezSalas R, Ahallal Y, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. PSA kinetics following primary focal cryotherapy (hemiablation) in
organ-conned prostate cancer patients. World J Urol.
2018;36(2):209–13.
39. Werneburg GT, Kongnyuy M, Halpern DM, Salcedo
JM, Chen C, LeSueur A, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. Feasibility of in-ofce
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 signicant 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 reex 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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 signicant 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 signicant 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, etal. (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
forPartial Gland Ablation: Clinical
Application andOutcomes
JonathanFainberg, JonathanColeman,
GiancarloMarra, PhillipStricker,
andNathanLawrentschuk
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 identied 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 forPartial Gland Ablation: Clinical Application andOutcomes
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 forIRE
Treatment oftheProstate
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 conguration 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 sufcient 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 10–20mm in distance.
Probe congurations may vary to dene an
appropriate ablation zone to encapsulate the
tumor cells within the prostate. While triangular
congurations 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
3mm distance from the rectum is considered sufcient 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 signicant 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
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
