Advertisement

Oncological long-term outcome of whole gland HIFU and open radical prostatectomy: a comparative analysis

  • Bernd RosenhammerEmail author
  • Roman Ganzer
  • Florian Zeman
  • Theresa Näger
  • Hans-Martin Fritsche
  • Andreas Blana
  • Maximilian Burger
  • Johannes Bründl
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the oncological long-term efficacy of whole gland high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) therapy and radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.

Methods

418 patients after open RP (1997–2004) were compared with 469 patients after whole gland HIFU (1997–2009) without preselection. Oncological follow-up focused on biochemical relapse, salvage treatment, life status and cause-specific mortality. The univariate log rank test was used to compare both treatment options regarding overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), biochemical failure-free survival (BFS) and salvage treatment-free survival (STS). To adjust the treatment effect for further prognostic baseline variables, a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model was calculated for each end point.

Results

Median follow-up was 13.3 years in the RP group and 6.5 years in the HIFU group. OS/CSS/BFS/STS rates at 10 years were 91/98/80/80% after RP and 76/94/70/71% after HIFU. HIFU therapy (reference RP) was a significant and independent predictor for an inferior OS, CSS and STS. In subgroup analysis, HIFU provided significantly reduced CSS for intermediate- (p = 0.010) and high-risk patients (p = 0.048); whereas no difference was observed in the low-risk group, intermediate-risk HIFU patients showed a significantly inferior STS (p = 0.040).

Conclusions

While whole gland HIFU offers a comparable long-term efficacy for low-risk patients, sufficient cancer control for high-risk patients is more than doubtful. For the subgroup of intermediate-risk patients, CSS rates seem to be comparable up to 10 years suggesting that HIFU may be an alternative for older patients, although a higher risk of salvage treatment should be expected.

Keywords

HIFU Radical prostatectomy Oncological outcome Prostate cancer 

Notes

Author’s contribution

BR, JB: project development, data collection and analysis, manuscript writing; RG, AB, MB: manuscript editing; FZ: statistical analyses, manuscript editing; TN: data collection and analysis. HMF: project development, manuscript editing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Johannes Bründl served as a paid instructor for EDAP-TMS. Andreas Blana served as a paid consultant for EDAP-TMS. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study protocol (reference number: 13-101-0272) was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Regensburg.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Supplementary material

345_2018_2613_MOESM1_ESM.docx (69 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 70 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Chaussy CG, Thuroff S (2017) High-intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of prostate cancer: a review. J Endourol 31(S1):S30–S37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jones TA et al (2018) High intensity focused ultrasound for radiorecurrent prostate cancer: a North American clinical trial. J Urol 199(1):133–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blana A et al (2008) Eight years’ experience with high-intensity focused ultrasonography for treatment of localized prostate cancer. Urology 72(6):1329–1333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Crouzet S et al (2010) Multicentric oncologic outcomes of high-intensity focused ultrasound for localized prostate cancer in 803 patients. Eur Urol 58(4):559–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Poissonnier L et al (2007) Control of prostate cancer by transrectal HIFU in 227 patients. Eur Urol 51(2):381–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Uchida T et al (2006) Five years experience of transrectal high-intensity focused ultrasound using the Sonablate device in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Int J Urol 13(3):228–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thuroff S et al (2003) High-intensity focused ultrasound and localized prostate cancer: efficacy results from the European multicentric study. J Endourol 17(8):673–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ficarra V et al (2006) Short-term outcome after high-intensity focused ultrasound in the treatment of patients with high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 98(6):1193–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pfeiffer D, Berger J, Gross AJ (2012) Single application of high-intensity focused ultrasound as a first-line therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: 5-years outcomes. BJU Int 110(11):1702–1707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dickinson L et al (2016) Medium-term outcomes after whole-gland high-intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of nonmetastatic prostate cancer from a multicentre registry cohort. Eur Urol 70(4):668–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mottet N et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71(4):618–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ganzer R et al (2013) Fourteen-year oncological and functional outcomes of high-intensity focused ultrasound in localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 112(3):322–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thuroff S, Chaussy C (2013) Evolution and outcomes of 3 MHz high intensity focused ultrasound therapy for localized prostate cancer during 15 years. J Urol 190(2):702–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Crouzet S et al (2014) Whole-gland ablation of localized prostate cancer with high-intensity focused ultrasound: oncologic outcomes and morbidity in 1002 patients. Eur Urol 65(5):907–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roach M 3rd et al (2006) Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65(4):965–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    D’Amico AV et al (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280(11):969–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Albisinni S et al (2017) Comparing high-intensity focal ultrasound hemiablation to robotic radical prostatectomy in the management of unilateral prostate cancer: a matched-pair analysis. J Endourol 31(1):14–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Capogrosso P et al (2018) Oncological and functional outcomes of elderly men treated with HIFU vs. minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: a propensity score analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 44(1):185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garcia-Barreras S et al (2018) Comparative analysis of partial gland ablation and radical prostatectomy to treat low and intermediate risk prostate cancer: oncologic and functional outcomes. J Urol 199(1):140–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chiang PH, Liu YY (2016) Comparisons of oncological and functional outcomes among radical retropubic prostatectomy, high dose rate brachytherapy, cryoablation and high-intensity focused ultrasound for localized prostate cancer. Springerplus 5(1):1905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bill-Axelson A et al (2011) Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 364(18):1708–1717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wilt TJ et al (2012) Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 367(3):203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hamdy FC et al (2016) 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375(15):1415–1424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van der Poel HG et al (2018) Focal therapy in primary localised prostate cancer: the European association of urology position in 2018. Eur Urol 74:84–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Epstein JI et al (2005) The 2005 International Society Of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29(9):1228–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyUniversity of Regensburg, Caritas St. Josef Medical CenterRegensburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of UrologyAsklepios Hospital Bad TölzBad TölzGermany
  3. 3.Center for Clinical StudiesUniversity Hospital RegensburgRegensburgGermany
  4. 4.Department of UrologySurgical Clinic Munich-BogenhausenMunichGermany
  5. 5.Department of UrologyFürth HospitalFürthGermany

Personalised recommendations