Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Follow-up modalities in focal therapy for prostate cancer: results from a Delphi consensus project

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Focal therapy can offer the middle ground for treatment between active surveillance and radical therapy in patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Factors that prohibit focal therapy from being standard of care are numerous. Several consensus projects have been conducted to position the utilization of imaging and trial design in focal therapy. However, the literature is still scarce on patient follow-up after focal therapy. For these reasons, an international multidisciplinary consensus project was established in order to reach consensus about a uniform follow-up protocol after focal therapy.

Objective

To standardize patient follow-up after focal therapy.

Materials and methods

A literature study was performed, and a questionnaire was constructed. The questionnaire was sent out to 76 participants (70 % urologists, 28 % radiologists and 2 % biomedical engineers) in three consecutive rounds according to the Delphi method. In each round, the panelists were presented with the results of the previous round. Participants each had the opportunity to adapt, delete or add questions. The topics discussed pertaining to follow-up after focal therapy were as follows: (1) general,(2) biopsies, (3) PSA, (4) digital rectal examination (DRE), (5) imaging, (6) quality of life (QoL) and (7) registration and pooling of data. The project was concluded with a face-to-face meeting in which final conclusions were formulated.

Results

The follow-up after focal therapy should be a minimum of 5 years. The following modalities should be included in assessing post-treatment outcomes: multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), biopsies, assessment of erectile function, QoL, urinary symptoms and incontinence. A systematic 12-core TRUS biopsy combined with 4–6 targeted biopsy cores of the treated area and any suspicious lesion(s) should be performed after 1 year, and thereafter only when there is suspicion on imaging. The ideal way to perform targeted biopsies is to use TRUS–MRI fusion technology. PSA should be performed for research purposes, in the first year, every 3 months, and after the first year, every 6 months. mpMRI is the optimal imaging modality for follow-up after focal therapy. On a 1.5T scanner, an endorectal coil is strongly advised by the panel, whereas on a 3T machine, it is optional, however, it will improve image quality. The following sequences should be included: T2WI, DWI including high b values of >1,000 and ADC maps of DWI, DCE and T1WI. Imaging should be performed at 6 months and at 1 year following treatment; after the first year post-treatment, it should be performed every year until 5 years following treatment. All data should ideally be pooled in a common global database.

Conclusion

Focal therapy is a relatively new form of treatment for prostate cancer. In order to include focal therapy as a standard of care treatment, consistent follow-up is necessary. By implementing the results of this consensus study, focal therapy users will be able to provide important and standardized outcome data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Participants of the meeting B. G. Muller, M. Brausi, J. J. Fütterer, S. Ghai, P. A. Pinto, I. V. Popeneciu, T. M. de Reijke, C. Robertson, S. Scionti, H. Wijkstra, O. Ukimura and T. J. Polascik.

References

  1. Valerio M et al (2014) The role of focal therapy in the management of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 66(4):732–751

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahmed HU et al (2012) Transatlantic Consensus Group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer. BJU Int 109(11):1636–1647

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cordeiro ER et al (2012) High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for definitive treatment of prostate cancer. BJU Int 110(9):1228–1242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Heidenreich A et al (2014) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 65(1):124–137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tsivian M, Polascik TJ (2010) Focal cryotherapy for prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 11(3):147–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Oto A et al (2013) MR imaging-guided focal laser ablation for prostate cancer: phase I trial. Radiology 267(3):932–940

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Garcia MAB, Gimeno AV, Cruz JF (2007) Radiofrequency interstitial tumor ablation (RITA) for the treatment of localised prostate cancer. Actas Urol Esp 31(6):627–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Valerio M et al (2014) Initial assessment of safety and clinical feasibility of irreversible electroporation in the focal treatment of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 17(4):343–347

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Moore CM et al (2014) Determination of optimal drug dose and light dose index to achieve minimally invasive focal ablation of localized prostate cancer using WST11-vascular targeted photodynamic (VTP) therapy. BJU Int. doi:10.1111/bju.12816

  10. Kovacs G, Cosset JM, Carey B (2014) Focal radiotherapy as focal therapy of prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 24(3):231–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. de la Rosette J et al (2010) Focal therapy in prostate cancer-report from a consensus panel. J Endourol 24(5):775–780

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dickinson L et al (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 59(4):477–494

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Muller BG et al (2014) Role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in focal therapy for prostate cancer: a Delphi consensus project. BJU Int 114(5):698–707. doi:10.1111/bju.12548

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. van den Bos W et al (2014) Focal therapy in prostate cancer: international multidisciplinary consensus on trial design. Eur Urol 65(6):1078–1083

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Linstone HA, Turoff M (1975) The Delphi method: techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley, London

    Google Scholar 

  16. Stewart J et al (1999) Identifying appropriate tasks for the preregistration year: modified Delphi technique. BMJ 319(7204):224–229

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Williams PL, Webb C (1994) The Delphi technique: a methodological discussion. J Adv Nurs 19:180–186. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb01066.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Collins GN et al (1997) The effect of digital rectal examination, flexible cystoscopy and prostatic biopsy on free and total prostate specific antigen, and the free-to-total prostate specific antigen ratio in clinical practice. J Urol 157(5):1744–1747

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Yuan JJ et al (1992) Effects of rectal examination, prostatic massage, ultrasonography and needle biopsy on serum prostate specific antigen levels. J Urol 147(3 Pt 2):810–814

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Biermann K et al (2010) Histopathological findings after treatment of prostate cancer using high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). Prostate 70(11):1196–1200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Oesterling JE et al (1993) Effect of cystoscopy, prostate biopsy, and transurethral resection of prostate on serum prostate-specific antigen concentration. Urology 42(3):276–282

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hamoen EH et al (2014) Measuring health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer: a systematic review of the most used questionnaires and their validity. Urol Oncol. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.10.005

  23. Penson DF, Litwin MS, Aaronson NK (2003) Health related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. J Urol 169(5):1653–1661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Esper P et al (1997) Measuring quality of life in men with prostate cancer using the functional assessment of cancer therapy-prostate instrument. Urology 50(6):920–928

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rosen RC, Cappelleri JC, Gendrano N 3rd (2002) The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF): a state-of-the-science review. Int J Impot Res 14(4):226–244

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The following authors declare no conflict of interest: B.G. Muller, W. van den Bos, M. Brausi, J.J. Fütterer, S. Ghai, P.A. Pinto, I.V. Popeneciu, T.M. de Reijke, B. Turkbey and H. Wijkstra. C. Robertson is consultant/PI at EDAP TMS Inc., S. Scionti is consultant at SonaCare Medical, T.J. Polascik receives a research grant from Endocare, O. Ukimura is advisory board member at SonaCare Medical, J.J.M.C.H. and de la Rosette is consultant to AngioDynamics.

Ethical standard

The manuscript does not contain clinical studies or patient data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. G. Muller.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 23 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 26 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Muller, B.G., van den Bos, W., Brausi, M. et al. Follow-up modalities in focal therapy for prostate cancer: results from a Delphi consensus project. World J Urol 33, 1503–1509 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1475-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1475-2

Keywords

Navigation