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

6 Focal Therapy andActive Surveillance ofProstate Cancer: AEuropean Perspective
Table 6.1 Contemporary European active surveillance protocols
Treatment
Institution Inclusion criteria MRI timing Biopsy timing
Cambridge
University (UK)
[24]
University
College London
(UK)
[9]
Royal Marsden
(UK)
[25]
Prostate Cancer
Research Active
Surveillance
(PRIAS)
[8]
MRI Magnetic resonance imaging, PSA Prostate-Specic Antigen
a
Many European institutions adopt variations of the PRIAS protocol, which are mainly based on the number and
involvement of positive cores, PSA levels at inclusion, as well as the timing of sequential assessments
a
Grade groups 1 and
2, ≤50% positive
cores
Grade groups 1 and 2Baseline, 12months,
Grade groups 1 and
2, ≤50% positive
cores
Grade groups 1 and
2, if MRI is used at
inclusion, no limit
on disease volume
is applied
Every 12months At 12 and 36months Higher grade group,
and according to PSA
kinetics and presence/
absence of an index
lesion
Not mandatory at the
time of publication
Baseline, 12, 48, and
84months, every
5years thereafter
Baseline and
conrmatory if
discordant baseline
MRI, thereafter only for
MRI progression
At 18–24months, and
every 24months
thereafter
At 12, 48, and
84months, every 5years
thereafter
recommendation
extraprostatic
involvement on
MRI
Grade group ≥3,
denitive
radiological
progression
Grade group ≥3,
or≥50% of cores
involved
Higher grade group,
nonorgan-conned
disease
65
There are efforts to reduce the number of
scheduled biopsies on AS aimed at reducing
patient burden related to the procedure, which
carry a small but non-negligible risk of complications such as bleeding, infections, and urinary
retention. One of the most appealing approaches
is the use of sequential MRIs instead of scheduled biopsies, which relies on the relatively high
negative predictive value of a nonsuspicious
MRI, typically identied by a PI-RADS score of
1, 2, or 3, in ruling out high-grade cancer [18].
The University College London Hospital (UCLH)
AS program relies on sequential MRI assessments, with biopsies triggered only by changes in
MRI suspicion scores and PSA kinetics [9].
Interestingly, in a cohort of 672 men, the rate of
metastases was the same compared to the PRIAS
study. However, a lower proportion of men discontinued AS, plausibly due to the strategy to
perform only triggered biopsies [9]. Nonetheless,
there is evidence that performing AS biopsies
only upon changes in MRI would indeed allow to
avoid many procedures, at the cost, however, of
missing more than 10% higher-grade cancers
[18, 19]. This means that while MRI is accurate
enough to predict the progression during AS, it is
not sufcient alone, if reassuring, to omit sched-
uled surveillance biopsies. There have been two
large consensus meetings on the best practices
for AS, the DETECTIVE and the Movember
International Consensus Meeting [20, 21]. In
both, strong efforts have been carried out to
dene the safest way to relieve the burden of
repeated biopsies and to optimize disease monitoring during follow-up. In the 2019 DETECTIVE
consensus meeting, the most frequent topics of
disagreement were those regarding the quantication of disease volume, especially for GG 2
disease, and the best timing to execute scheduled
surveillance biopsies, particularly when considering scenarios including stable or negative MRIs
during follow-up [20].
While older AS protocols mandated discontinuation also based on adverse PSA kinetics
(i.e., PSA doubling time or absolute PSA thresholds), there was a strong agreement that such
events shall initially trigger further assessment,
such as MRIs and biopsies, rather than an immediate conversion to denitive treatments. Similar
concerns were shared within the 2023 Movember
consensus; in fact, there was much disagreement
on the best way to measure baseline disease volume, especially considering pathological tumor
quantication on biopsy and the size of MRI

66
R. Leni et al.
lesions [21]. Interestingly, novel risk factors for
progression, such as genomic testing and family
history, were also discussed in the Movember
consensus [21]. The panel also concluded that in
the presence of favorable features, namely, a stable MRI, low PSA density, and stable PSA kinetics, scheduled surveillance biopsies may be
omitted after shared decision-making with the
patient [21].
In summary, the EAU guidelines provide
evidence- based recommendations for the inclusion and monitoring of patients with favorable
risk PCa on AS [2]. While AS is now the standard
of care for low-risk disease, the optimal inclusion
criteria, as well as monitoring strategy for patients
with intermediate-risk features, are a matter of
debate and are yet to be precisely dened [22,
23]. The level of evidence regarding the use of
MRI during follow-up to rule out high-grade PCa
on AS is low. Therefore, the guideline panel
strongly recommends planning scheduled biopsies every 2–3years on AS to diagnose progression in a timely manner [2]. The recommendation
of forgoing scheduled biopsies if the MRI is nonconcerning and PSA density is not strong enough
since it only relies on consensus meetings [2, 20,
21].
Focal Therapy: Available Protocols
inEurope
Owing to the effects of overdiagnosis and overtreatment in the PSA era, it became crucial to
identify management strategies to avoid the
side effects of radical-intent treatments without compromising the chance of cure [26].
While the oncological safety of AS has been
validated in prospective studies with long-term
follow-up, the safety and efcacy of FT are
currently under investigation [16, 27]. The
EAU guidelines, in fact, consider FT as an
experimental option for low- and intermediaterisk PCa and recommend against its use in
high-risk and locally advanced cases [2]. Many
new studies for the primary treatment of localized PCa and prospective protocols have been
implemented in Europe in the last decade,
spanning from early feasibility studies to more
recent prospective comparative studies [12,
28]. The most frequent types of energy used
were HIFU, followed by cryoablation, irreversible electroporation (IRE), and focal laser
ablation (FLA), as shown in Table 6.2. Most
studies evaluated outcomes in low- and intermediate-risk patients and few studies included
patients with high-risk features [29]. While
most studies focused on early outcomes (i.e.,
rates of any- or clinically signicant PCa at
follow-up biopsies), few of them reported
long-term outcomes, including metastases and
PCa mortality [30, 31]. When evaluating early
outcomes, the majority of protocols included
serial PSA measurements and either 6- or
12-month per-protocol MRI and biopsies.
Rates of failure, dened either as clinically signicant PCa at biopsies, curative-intent treatment, or metastases, spanned from 20% to 30%
[28]. It must be noted that the denition of progression was highly variable across studies.
Moreover, few studies included more than 100
patients, and these were mostly limited to
HIFU. Most studies evaluated functional outcomes at pre-planned time points; while a good
recovery of urinary and sexual function was
observed in general, it appeared that wholegland procedures were associated with worse
outcomes compared to hemi-gland treatments
[32]. Moreover, treatment of apical lesions was
associated with higher rates of urinary retention, an adverse effect also typical of transperineal prostate biopsy [33, 34]. According to a
recent systematic review and meta-analysis,
there are 18 currently ongoing prospective trials of FT (mainly FLA and HIFU) in Europe,
nine of which are actively recruiting [28].
Interestingly, of two of these are randomized
controlled trials, the rst one (NCT03531099)
is actually comparing HIFU to AS in GG 1 PCa
in France, and is expected to terminate accrual
in 2026. Another randomized controlled trial
ongoing in Norway (NCT03668652) will compare oncological and functional outcomes in
patients with GG 1 and GG 2 PCa between
HIFU or MRI-guided Transurethral Ultrasound
Ablation (TULSA) vs RP.

6 Focal Therapy andActive Surveillance ofProstate Cancer: AEuropean Perspective
2year treatment-
free survival:
Follow-up
strategy Key results
Median
follow up
80%
MRI, and BX at
1year
33months PSA q6mo,
GS≤7,
primary
treatment
NIL NIL Poor accrual
risk PCa
Non-whole
gland HIFU
associated with
fewer adverse
events
1year
12months MRI and bx at
HIFU vs
nonwhole-gland
HIFU
Negative biopsy
at 1year: 95%
Radical
treatment-free
survival at
1year
30months MRI and bx at
GS≤7,
primary
treatment
2years: 89%
5years
failure-free
survival: 54%
1year
(additional MRI
45months MRI and bx at
GS≤7,
primary
treatment
5years
cancer-specic
1month after
treatment)
measurements
39.5months Serial PSA
clinically
(continued)
survival 100%,
metastases free
survival 93%
localized PCa
67
cryotherapy
55 HIFU
France 2010–2016 Retrospective,
Study Country Years Type of study Patients Type of energy Incl criteria
Table 6.2 Published studies of FT for primary treatment of localized PCa in Europe
Annoot A, etal.,
82 HIFU vs RP Intermediate-
single-institution
World J Urol,
controlled trial
UK 2014–2017 Randomized
2019 [35]
Hamdy FC,
etal., Health
Technol Assess,
86 HIFU Whole-gland
comparative
Germany 2012–2017 Retrospective,
2018 [36]
Lei Y, etal., J
Endourol, 2019
111 HIFU
institutional
France 2009–2015 Prospective, multi
[37]
Rischmann P,
etal., Eur Urol,
2017 [38]
309 HIFU,
single institution
France 2009–2018 Retrospective,
Tourinho-
Barbosa, etal., J
50 HIFU Unilateral
institution
Belgium 2007–2015 Prospective, single
Urol, 2020 [39]
Van Velthoven R,
etal., Prostate
Cancer Prostatic
dis, 2016 [31]

68
85% without
Follow-up
strategy Key results
Median
follow up
12months MRI and bx at
cancer at rst
subsequent Bx
HIFU
comparable to
6month
localized PCa
36months Serial PSA
(up to GS 4+3)
measurements
clinically
RP in oncologic
control, HIFU
associated with
improved
functional
localized PCa
outcomes
30% rate of
positive bx after
6–12month
14months MRI
Clinically
localized PCa
treatment
37% rate of
positive bx after
treatment
after HIFU, no
scheduled Bx
6month
24months MRI and bx at
(PSA≤20ng/
mL)
to 4+3,
PSA≤20ng/
12months Bx at 1year 84% rate of
mL
negative bx after
treatment
clinically
localized PCa
(GS≤3+4
27% rate of
positive bx after
treatment
positive biopsy
1year
17months MRI and bx at
38months Bx at 1year 29% rate of
clinically
localized PCa
GS≤3+4,
PSA ≤15ng/
R. Leni et al.
after treatment
further treatment
after HIFU
30months MRI at 1year 86% free of any
mL
to 4+3,
PSA≤20ng/
mL
Study Country Years Type of study Patients Type of energy Incl criteria
Table 6.2 (continued)
56 HIFU Clinically
UK 2009–2011 Prospective, single
Ahmed HU,
55 HIFU vs RP Unilateral
institution
Belgium 2007–2015 Comparative,
etal., Eur Urol,
2015 [40]
Albissinni S,
propensity score
matched
etal., J Endourol,
2017 [41]
CEUS)
32 HIFU (MRI vs
institutional
Switzerland 2014–2020 Prospective, multi
Bacchetta F,
etal., Urol
118 HIFU cT1-T3, GS up
UK 2009–2017 Prospective, multi
Oncol, 2020 [42]
Dickinson L,
institution
etal., Urol
Oncol, 2017 [43]
67 HIFU Unilateral
institution
France 2009–2013 Prospective, single
Fejoo ERC,
etal., Eur Urol,
2016 [44]
or cryotherapy
51 HIFU Unilateral
Germany 2013–2016 Prospective, multi
Ganzer R, etal.,
236 HIFU (n=188)
institutional
J Urol, 2018 [45]
propensity score
France 2009–2015 Comparative,
Garcia-Barreras
S, etal., J Urol,
(n=48) vs RP
107 HIFU cT1-T3, GS up
matched
institution
UK 2009–2019 Prospective, single
2018 [46]
Johnston MJ,
etal., Urology,
2019 [47]

6 Focal Therapy andActive Surveillance ofProstate Cancer: AEuropean Perspective
6month bx (all
patients
underwent
super-extended
sampling)
38% cancer
relapse at
follow-up bx
from any further
treatment: 59%
Treatment regret
in 21% of
patients
signicantly
decreased at 1
month, but
increased at 12
month
7-year failure-
free- survival
69%
Follow-up
strategy Key results
Median
follow up
18months Bx at 6month 41% csPCa at
localized PCa,
GS≤4+3,
PSA≤15ng/
mL
6–12month
12months MRI and bx at
36months MRI at 1year 5year freedom
localized PCa
to 4+3,
38months MRI and bx at
PSA≤20ng/
mL
6–12month
12months Site-specic IIEF-EF
intermediate-
risk PCa
localized PCa,
GS≤4+3,
PSA≤15ng/
mL
q3-6month,
MRI at
32months PSA
radiological
stage up to
No residual PCa
6–12month,
biopsy if
suspicious MRI
12months 6month MRI,
T3bN0M0
(continued)
detected at
follow-up
12 month biopsy
intermediate-
risk PCa,
PI-RADS 4–5
69
75 HIFU Clinically
institution
Switzerland 2014–2018 Prospective, single
Study Country Years Type of study Patients Type of energy Incl criteria
Mortezavi A,
etal., J Urol,
21 HIFU Clinically
Germany 2015–2018 Prospective, single
2019 [48]
Rosenhammer B,
1032 HIFU cT1-T3, GS up
institution
etal., Urol Int,
2019 [49]
UK 2005–2017 Prospective, multi
Stabile A, etal.,
institutional
BJU Int, 2019
[50]
52 HIFU Low- and
Germany 2014–2019 Prospective, multi
Westhof N, etal.,
118 HIFU Clinically
institutional
World J Urol,
UK 2009–2013 Prospective, multi
2021 [51]
Yap T, etal., Eur
institutional
Urol, 2016 [52]
1379 HIFU Gleason 6–9,
(analysis of three
trials)
multi-institutional
UK 2005–2020 Prospective,
Reddy D, etal.,
Eur Urol, 2022
9 Brachytherapy Low- or
institution
Germany 2020 Prospective, single
[53]
Fischbach F,
etal., Eur Radiol,
2020 [54]

70
No recurrence
observed at 1
year
Treatment
relapse in one
patient
4years
recurrence-free
survival 70%,
metastases free
survival 93%,
overall survival
100%
5years
relapse-free
survival: 89%
Apical lesions
associated with
worse functional
outcomes
20% treatment
failure
correlation
between
pre-treatment
tumor volume
and post-
operative
R. Leni et al.
necrotic volume
at MRI
Follow-up
strategy Key results
Median
follow up
12months MRI and bx at
17 Brachytherapy Single
12month
PI-RADS 3–5
lesion,
institution
24months
24months MRI and bx at
GS≤3+4
GS≤4+3,
PSA≤15ng/
30 Brachytherapy
institution
according to
48months MRI and bx
mL
GS≤7,
PSA≤10ng/
30 Brachytherapy
institution
imaging results
mL
follow-up, no
planned biopsies
32months MRI during
GS≤7,
50 Brachytherapy
6months Study focused
unilateral
disease
28 Brachytherapy Clinically
institution
on functional
outcomes
localized PCa
single institution,
comparative
6month
20months MRI and bx at
GS≤3+4,
PSA≤15ng/
mL
electroporation
30 Irreversible
institution
16months MRI at 6month Signicant
Clinically
localized PCa
electroporation
30 Irreversible
single institution
Study Country Years Type of study Patients Type of energy Incl criteria
Table 6.2 (continued)
France 2013–2016 Prospective, single
Graff P, etal., Int
J Radiat Oncol
biol Phy2, 2018
[55]
UK 2014–2016 Prospective, single
Langley S, etal.,
Netherlands 2013–2016 Prospective, single
BJU Int, 2020
[56]
Peters M, etal.,
Int J Radiat
Oncol Biol Phys,
2019 [30]
Spain 2013–2017 Prospective, single
Prada JP, etal.,
Strahlenther
Onkol, 2020 [57]
France 2017 Retrospective,
Srougi V, etal.,
Brachytherapy,
2017 [33]
Germany 2014–2017 Prospective, single
Collettini F,
etal., Radiology,
2019 [58]
UK 2011–2016 Retrospective,
Giganti F, etal.,
Magn Reson
Imaging, 2019
[59]

6 Focal Therapy andActive Surveillance ofProstate Cancer: AEuropean Perspective
No signicant
differences in
functional
outcomes
between
diagnosis and
follow-up
Residual csPCa
in 33% of
patients
Similar
oncologic
outcomes
between
whole-gland vs
hemi-crio
ablation
Failure-free
survival 85% for
high-risk, 93%
for intermediate
risk, at 3years
2years
progression-free
survival 28% for
PDT vs 58% for
Follow-up
strategy Key results
outcomes serial
Median
follow up
measurements
6months Functional
Clinically
localized PCa
6month
12months MRI and bx at
Clinically
localized PCa
specic
41months Institution
low- to
intermediate-
risk PCa
for cause
biopsies
28months Scheduled MRI,
and high-risk
PCa
12month
Low risk PCa 24months Biopsy at
AS
Successful
ablation in 75%
of cases at 3year
follow-up
6month
Low-risk PCa 42months Biopsy at
71
(continued)
electroporation
60 Irreversible
institution
Netherlands 2013–2016 Prospective, single
Study Country Years Type of study Patients Type of energy Incl criteria
Scheltema MJ,
etal., Diagn
Interv Radiol,
electroporation
19 Irreversible
UK 2013–2015 Prospective, single
2018 [60]
Valerio M, etal.,
66 Cryotherapy Unilateral
institution
Spain 2010–2018 Prospective, single
J Urol, 2017 [61]
Bossier R, etal.,
institution
Actas Urol Esp
(Engl Ed), 2020
[32]
105 Cryotherapy Intermediate-
multiinstitutional
UK 2013–2016 Prospective,
Shah TT, etal.,
Eur Urol, 2019
[29]
Photodynamic
therapy, active
surveillance
206
PDT
205
AS
controlled trial
2011–2013 Randomized
France,
Netherland,
Germany,
Spain,
Finland, UK,
Azzouzi AR,
etal., Lancet
Oncol, 2017 [62]
therapy
68 Photodynamic
institutional
2008–2014 Prospective, multi
Sweden
Germany,
France, UK
Noweski A,
etal., Eur Urol
Focus, 2019 [63]

72
80% recurrence
Follow-up
strategy Key results
Median
follow up
12months Early MRI, then
Single focus of
free at follow-up
biopsy
30% of patients
MRI at 6 and
12months;
biopsy if relapse
12months MRI and bx at
GS≤3+4
PCa patients
recurrence-free
at follow-up
MRI
6month
under active
surveillance
R. Leni et al.
Study Country Years Type of study Patients Type of energy Incl criteria
Table 6.2 (continued)
focal ablation
20 Radiofrequency
institution
UK 2015–2017 Prospective, single
Orczyk C, etal.,
J Urol, 2021 [64]
10 Unilateral
France 2018–2019 Prospective, single
Frandon J, etal.,
Prostatic Artery
Embolization
institution
J Vasc Interv
Radiol, 2021 [65]
HIFU high-intensity focused ultrasounds, GS Gleason Score, PSA prostate-specic antigen, MRI magnetic resonance imaging; Bx biopsy, UK United Kingdom, RP radical
prostatectomy, PCa prostate cancer, CEUS contrast enhanced ultrasounds, IIEF-EF International Index of Erectile Function, PI-RADS Pro state Imaging Reporting and Data
System; csPCa: Clinically signicant PCa

6 Focal Therapy andActive Surveillance ofProstate Cancer: AEuropean Perspective
73
European Perspective ofFocal
Therapy forLocalized PCa
Recently, the EAU Young Academic Urologists
(YAU) Prostate Cancer Working Party held a
comprehensive cross-sectional survey among
specialists in urology from nine European urological associations [66]. Among respondents,
the majority were high-volume urologists working at academic institutions. Key ndings
included at least three major areas of interest:
awareness of FT as a treatment option for localized PCa, optimal patient selection and treatment
delivery, and the need for high-level evidence in
support of its application [66]. There have been
numerous consensus conferences in the past
decade aimed at dening the optimal candidate
for FT, where the main respondents’ expertise
was cryotherapy, photodynamic therapy, and
HIFU [67–69]. While historically, FT has
emerged as an alternative to AS in patients with
low-risk PCa, a recent consensus recommends
limiting FT indications to the intermediate-risk
setting, considering the potential risk of overtreatment of men with low-risk disease [68]. A
general agreement was reached in dening the
index lesion as the main target to deliver FT, with
however some respondents suggesting the need
to treat all PCa foci observed on biopsy or MRI
[66]. The most crucial area of interest was identied in the consensus reached on the need for
stronger high-level evidence supporting the
safety of FT at long-term follow-up. Indeed, only
one randomized controlled trial (RCT), conducted in ten European countries, evaluated the
outcomes of FT with vascular-targeted phototherapy (VTP) vs AS, showing a higher risk of
receiving curative-intent treatment at 2years in
patients managed with AS [70]. However, it must
be noted that only patients with low-risk, lowvolume PCa were included in this trial, not representing the ideal setting of FT in 2023, thus
limiting the generalizability of its result to
patients with favorable intermediate-risk PCa
[70]. Signicant uncertainty regarding the poten-
tial low accrual rate of RCTs involving FT as an
experimental arm arose in the last decade, as
experienced with the Partial Ablation versus
Radical Therapy (PART) phase 3 trial, where
only 30% of eligible patients agreed to undergo
randomization, and 20% of those assigned to RP
refused treatment allocation [36]. Nonetheless,
further trials are ongoing in Europe in the eld of
FT for localized PCa, and novel two-staged consensus procedures for RCT allocation are currently under evaluation and appear promising in
improving patient accrual for clinical trials in
urology [28, 71].
In conclusion, in Europe, we observed a widespread diffusion of FT, and prospective protocols
are ongoing to further establish its long-term
oncological safety. Among European urologists,
a relative majority stated they would suggest FT
to selected patients [66]. However, a general consensus has been reached on the need for robust
long-term oncologic outcome results before
implementing FT in the clinical practice for the
management of localized PCa; in fact, although
several studies have been published, very few of
them provided long-term results [28, 69].
Moreover, the majority of clinical evidence gathered to inform treatment decision-making derives
from studies of HIFU; different types of energies,
such as IRE and FLA, have been studied without,
however, generating sufcient data to provide
recommendations [28]. At last, only one study
reported outcomes for patients with high-risk
PCa, with a failure-free survival of approximately
85% at a three-year follow-up [29]. To date and
considering the available evidence, the EAU
guidelines acknowledge that FT has a favorable
side-effects prole and recommend against its
use in high-risk and locally advanced PCa cases
while suggesting its applicability in the low- and
intermediate-risk setting only within prospective
registries or clinical trials [2]. In particular, HIFU
and cryotherapy shall be offered only in the context of a prospective registry, while all other
options shall be delivered only within welldesigned prospective trials [2].

74
R. Leni et al.
Active Surveillance andFocal
Therapy: Adherence inEurope
While there is solid evidence that the uptake of
AS is increasing in the United States, such data
are scarce in Europe, mainly due to the lack of a
centralized data reporting system for patients
diagnosed with PCa [72]. Nordic countries have
historically relied on solid nationwide databases
that can help answer the question of how many
patients with low-grade PCa are managed with
AS. In a recent population-based study in
Sweden, more than 90% of patients with very
low-risk PCa and more than 70% of those with
low-risk PCa were initially managed with AS
from 2011 to 2014 [6]. Further evidence from
the Danish Prostate Registry, another solid
nationwide database, shows similar rates of
uptake of AS for men with GG 1 PCa [73]. Of
note, both Swedish and Danish gures are similar to the proportion and trend of men initially
managed with AS in the United States [72].
Considering that FT indications varied in the
last decade, and current guidelines consider this
approach experimental, there is no solid data on
the uptake of this form of treatment worldwide.
For the same reason, since monitoring strategies
after delivery differ at an institutional level, it is
difcult to determine rates of adherence, as well
the rates of treatment failure, in patients treated
with FT. It is established that long-term oncologic outcomes after AS are excellent, with
almost no patients dying of PCa and very few
developing distant metastases [8, 16]. Longterm outcomes of FT are not yet established
since many patients may undergo repeated FT
sessions, and eventually receive any form of
radical salvage treatments, such as RP and RT
[50, 53]. Nonetheless, approximately 25–50%
of patients with low-, intermediate-, or high-risk
PCa had a failure at a 5-year follow-up in two
large UK cohorts, with failure dened as a transition to salvage whole-gland treatment, metastases, or PCa mortality [50, 53]. When
considering only the transition to radical forms
of treatment, less than 20% were treated after
FT delivery in a UK cohort [50]. Of note, there
are overlaps of monitoring strategy after FT
delivery and AS, both scenarios, in fact, involve
the use of sequential MRI assessments and surveillance biopsies [8, 50]. However, adherence
is better studied within AS, where solid longterm outcomes allow for the evaluation of longterm adherence to repeated testing and
surveillance biopsies [74]. In a study from the
Movember GAP 3 consortium, the long-term
adherence to surveillance biopsies decreased
over time, ranging from approximately 90% at a
1-year follow- up to approximately 40% at a
longer-term follow-up [74].
Conclusions
Overtreatment in PCa led to the introduction of
strategies aimed at reducing treatment-related
side effects [28]. AS and FT emerged as promising modalities capable of reducing the morbidity
burden of RP and RT [2]. While AS aims at
delaying or avoiding treatment at all, FT aims at
delivering different forms of energy to control the
index lesion of PCa, thus reducing treatment side
effects as well [28]. Long-term results of AS have
demonstrated its safety in selected, contemporary
patients with favorable risk PCa. However, there
are no long-term data on the safety of FT [53].
Further research shall establish both the best FT
candidate and the optimal surveillance strategy
after initial energy delivery. Novel imaging
modalities, such as prostate-specic membrane
antigen (PSMA) PET, along with rened methods to quantify the total amount of pattern four in
biopsy specimens, will aid clinicians in nding
the right place for FT in the context of deintensied treatment modalities for early-stage
PCa [75].
References
1. Van Poppel H, Roobol MJ, Chapple CR, Catto JWF,
N’Dow J, Sønksen J, et al. Prostate-specic antigen testing as part of a risk-adapted early detection
strategy for prostate cancer: European Association of
Urology Position and Recommendations for 2021.
Eur Urol. 2021;80:703–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eururo.2021.07.024.
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
