Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cryosurgery, an alternative treatment option for organ-confined prostate cancer: current beliefs and practice patterns of urologists

  • Urology - Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We aim to evaluate the current beliefs and practice patterns of urologists in regard to use of cryosurgery for management of PCa.

Methods

An anonymous 13-point survey was designed and sent out to members of the Society of Urologic Oncology (SUO), Endourological Society (ES) and American College of Cryosurgery (ACC). Descriptive statistics and univariate analyses were used to determine variables associated with the use of cryosurgery.

Results

Of the 206 responses received [81 (39.2 %) SUO; 106 (51.5 %) ES; 19 (9.2 %) ACC], 83 (40.3 %) performed cryosurgery. The majority of respondents who utilize cryosurgery do so in unilateral (80.3 %) and bilateral (77.6 %) intermediate-risk PCa. Also, users of this technology indicated significant use in primary treatment (>72 %), salvage treatment (>83 %), in patients who prefer cryosurgery (89.9 %) have a life expectancy ≥10 years (65.8 %) and poor erections (74.7 %). The main reason for not utilizing cryosurgery was the lack of technical expertise (56.7 %). A urologist in a non-academic practice setting was 3.2 times more likely to perform cryosurgery compared to a urologist in an academic setting, p = 0.0001.

Conclusion

Cryosurgery is increasingly being accepted among urologists. However, the need for large-scale studies as well as randomized clinical trials to further delineate the benefits of cryosurgery and convince the non-users and institutions cannot be overemphasized.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2016) Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 66(1):7–30. doi:10.3322/caac.21332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Habibian DJ, Katz AE (2016) Emerging minimally invasive procedures for focal treatment of organ-confined prostate cancer. Int J Hyperth. doi:10.1080/02656736.2016.1195925

    Google Scholar 

  3. Miller DCPL, Belldegrun AS (2012) Cryotherapy for prostate cancer. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, Partin AW, Peters CA, Ramchandani P (eds) Campbell-walsh urology, 10th edn. Elsevier, Philadelphia

  4. Ramsay CR, Adewuyi TE, Gray J, Hislop J, Shirley MD, Jayakody S, MacLennan G, Fraser C, MacLennan S, Brazzelli M, N’Dow J, Pickard R, Robertson C, Rothnie K, Rushton SP, Vale L, Lam TB (2015) Ablative therapy for people with localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 19(49):1–490. doi:10.3310/hta19490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tay KJ, Polascik TJ (2016) Focal cryotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Arch Esp Urol 69(6):317–326

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Benoit RM, Cohen JK, Miller RJ Jr (2000) Cryosurgery for prostate cancer: new technology and indications. Curr Urol Rep 1(1):41–47

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Shaikh AM, Srivastava A, Atrey MD (2015) Next generation design, development, and evaluation of cryoprobes for minimally invasive surgery and solid cancer therapeutics: in silico and computational studies. OMICS 19(2):131–144. doi:10.1089/omi.2014.0137

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. N'Dow J, Briganti A, DeSantis M, Knoll T, Llorente CA, Ribal MJ, Sylvester R, Loch T, VanPoppel H (2016) European Association of Urology Guidelines. https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-Extended-Guidelines-2016-Edn.pdf

  9. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines Prostate Cancer Version 3 (2016) pg 51. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp

  10. Elliott DS, Chow GK, Gettman M (2006) Current status of robotics in female urology and gynecology. World J Urol 24(2):188–192. doi:10.1007/s00345-006-0071-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gettman MT, Blute ML, Peschel R, Bartsch G (2003) Current status of robotics in urologic laparoscopy. Eur Urol 43(2):106–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Abern MR, Tsivian M, Polascik TJ (2012) Focal therapy of prostate cancer: evidence-based analysis for modern selection criteria. Curr Urol Rep 13(2):160–169. doi:10.1007/s11934-012-0241-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. van den Bos W, Muller BG, Ahmed H, Bangma CH, Barret E, Crouzet S, Eggener SE, Gill IS, Joniau S, Kovacs G, Pahernik S, de la Rosette JJ, Rouviere O, Salomon G, Ward JF, Scardino PT (2014) Focal therapy in prostate cancer: international multidisciplinary consensus on trial design. Eur Urol 65(6):1078–1083. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ficarra V, Wiklund PN, Rochat CH, Dasgupta P, Challacombe BJ, Sooriakumaran P, Siemer S, Suardi N, Novara G, Mottrie A (2013) The European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) survey of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). BJU Int 111(4):596–603. doi:10.1111/bju.12100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sidana A, Donovan JF, Gaitonde K (2014) Surgeons’ preferences and practice patterns regarding intraoperative frozen section during partial nephrectomy. Urol Oncol 32(6):864–868. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.02.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. O’Leary MP, Baum NH, Blizzard R, Blute ML, Cooper TP, Dineen MK, Fenninger RB, Gee WF, Gormley EA, Ignatoff JM, Nachtsheim DA, Painter MR, Thomas R, Wei JT (2002) 2001 American Urological Association Gallup Survey: changes in physician practice patterns, satisfaction with urology, and treatment of prostate cancer and erectile dysfunction. J Urol 168(2):649–652

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Al Ekish S, Nayeemuddin M, Maddox M, Pareek G (2013) The role of cryosurgery of the prostate for nonsurgical candidates. JSLS J Soc Laparoendosc Surg Soc Laparoendosc Surg 17(3):423–428. doi:10.4293/108680813x13693422518551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Polascik TJ, Nosnik I, Mayes JM, Mouraviev V (2007) Short-term cancer control after primary cryosurgical ablation for clinically localized prostate cancer using third-generation cryotechnology. Urology 70(1):117–121. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2007.03.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Babaian RJ, Donnelly B, Bahn D, Baust JG, Dineen M, Ellis D, Katz AE, Pisters L, Rukstalis D, Shinohara K, Thrasher JB (2008) AUA Best practice policy statement on cryosurgery for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. https://www.auanet.org/education/guidelines/cryosurgery.cfm

  20. Hoznek A, Katz R, Gettman M, Salomon L, Antiphon P, de la Taille A, Yiou R, Chopin D, Abbou CC (2003) Laparoscopic and robotic surgical training in urology. Curr Urol Rep 4(2):130–137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Muthigi A, George A, Su D, Yan P, Kruecker J, Narayanan H, Thai J, Kadakia M, Michael K, Iyer A, Sidana A, Kilchevsky A, Frye TP, Urkbey T, Choyke PL, Wood BJ, Pinto PA (2016) MP20-16 Pinto training and skills assessment for fusion-guided prostate biopsy: defining the learning curve. J Urol. http://www.jurology.com/article/S0022-5347(16)03073-1/fulltext

  22. Mayes JM, Mouraviev V, Polascik TJ (2008) Impact of a cryotherapy training workshop on the adoption and utilization of cryotherapy in the community setting. Can J Urol 15(4):4147–4152

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Zisman A, Pantuck AJ, Cohen JK, Belldegrun AS (2001) Prostate cryoablation using direct transperineal placement of ultrathin probes through a 17-gauge brachytherapy template-technique and preliminary results. Urology 58(6):988–993

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge our survey participants and the urologic societies that made this study possible.

Authors contribution

M. Kongnyuy was involved in data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing. D.M. Halpern collected the data and edited the manuscript. K.E. Kosinski edited the manuscript. A.E. Katz was involved in manuscript editing, other (supervision).

Funding

The Department of Urology at Winthrop University Hospital provided the funds needed for the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Winthrop University Hospital, 1300 Franklin Ave, Mineola, Garden City, NY, 11530, USA

    Michael Kongnyuy, Daniel M. Halpern, Kaitlin E. Kosinski & Aaron E. Katz

Authors
  1. Michael Kongnyuy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel M. Halpern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kaitlin E. Kosinski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aaron E. Katz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Kongnyuy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they do not have any conflict of interest.

Informed consent

This was anonymous study with the free will to respond to the survey. Informed consent was not necessary as a result.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kongnyuy, M., Halpern, D.M., Kosinski, K.E. et al. Cryosurgery, an alternative treatment option for organ-confined prostate cancer: current beliefs and practice patterns of urologists. Int Urol Nephrol 49, 43–48 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-016-1440-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-016-1440-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation