Skip to main content
Log in

Validation of the current eligibility criteria for focal therapy in men with localized prostate cancer and the role of MRI

World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Cite this article



To validate current eligibility criteria for focal therapy (FT) in prostate cancer men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) and to assess the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).


Retrospective analysis of 217 RP patients (2009–2016) with preoperative MRI (almost all in external institutions) and fulfillment of different FT eligibility criteria: unilateral tumor, clinical tumor stage ≤ cT2a, prostate volume ≤ 60 mL and either biopsy Gleason 3 + 3 or ≤ 3 + 4 and PSA ≤ 10 or ≤ 15 ng/mL. Multivariable logistic regression analyses (MVA) assessed the role of MRI to predict the presence of significant contralateral tumor or extracapsular extension (ECE), including seminal vesicle invasion. To quantify model accuracy, Receiver Operating Characteristics-derived area under the curve (AUC) was used.


Of 217 patients fulfilling widest biopsy criteria and 113 fulfilling additional MRI criteria, 64 (29.7%) and 37 (32.7%) remained eligible for FT according to histopathological results. In MVA, fulfillment of MRI criteria reached independent predictor status for prediction of contralateral tumor but not for ECE. Addition of MRI resulted in AUC gain (57.5–64.6%). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for MRI to predict contralateral tumor were: 41.8, 71.6, 70.9 and 42.6%, respectively. Virtually the same results were recorded for Gleason 3 + 3 and/or PSA ≤ 10 ng/mL.


Patient eligibility criteria for FT using biopsy criteria remained insufficient with respect to contralateral tumor disease. Although, MRI improves accuracy, it cannot safely exclude or minimize chance of significant cancer on contralateral prostate side. To date, stricter eligibility criteria are needed to provide more diagnostic reliability.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Feijoo ER, Sivaraman A, Barret E et al (2016) Focal high-intensity focused ultrasound targeted hemiablation for unilateral prostate cancer: a prospective evaluation of oncologic and functional outcomes. Eur Urol 69:214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jarow JP, Ahmed HU, Choyke PL et al (2016) Partial gland ablation for prostate cancer: report of a food and drug administration, american urological association, and society of urologic oncology public workshop. Urology 88:8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tay KJ, Polascik TJ, Elshafei A et al (2016) Primary cryotherapy for high-grade clinically localized prostate cancer: oncologic and functional outcomes from the COLD registry. J Endourol 30:43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Eggener SE, Yousuf A, Watson S et al (2016) Phase II evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging guided focal laser ablation of prostate cancer. J Urol 196:1670

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bomers JGR, Cornel EB, Futterer JJ et al (2017) MRI-guided focal laser ablation for prostate cancer followed by radical prostatectomy: correlation of treatment effects with imaging. World J Urol 35:703

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cooperberg MR, Moul JW, Carroll PR (2005) The changing face of prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:8146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. van den Bos W, Muller BG, Ahmed H et al (2014) Focal therapy in prostate cancer: international multidisciplinary consensus on trial design. Eur Urol 65:1078

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wise AM, Stamey A, McNeal JE et al (2002) Morphologic and clinical significance of multifocal prostate cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 60:264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Algaba F, Montironi MD (2010) Impact of prostate cancer multifocality on its biology and treatment. J Endourol 24:799

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71:618

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Onik G, Miessau M, Bostwick DG (2009) Three-dimensional prostate mapping biopsy has a potentially significant impact on prostate cancer management. J Clin Oncol 27:4321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Scheltema MJ, Tay KJ, Postema AW et al (2017) Utilization of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in clinical practice and focal therapy: report from a Delphi consensus project. World J Urol 35:695

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Postema A, Mischi M, de la Rosette J et al (2015) Multiparametric ultrasound in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review. World J Urol 33:1651

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Villers A, Puech P, Mouton D et al (2006) Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol 176:2432

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V et al (2011) Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol 186:1818

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Billing A, Buchner A, Stief C et al (2016) Poor standard mp-MRI and routine biopsy fail to precisely predict intraprostatic tumor localization. World J Urol 34:1383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Billing A, Buchner A, Stief C et al (2015) Preoperative mp-MRI of the prostate provides little information about staging of prostate carcinoma in daily clinical practice. World J Urol 33:923

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Simmons LAM, Kanthabalan A, Arya M et al (2017) The PICTURE study: diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men requiring a repeat prostate biopsy. Br J Cancer 116:1159

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Budaus L, Isbarn H, Schlomm T et al (2009) Current technique of open intrafascial nerve-sparing retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 56:317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Patel VR, Coelho RF, Palmer KJ et al (2009) Periurethral suspension stitch during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of the technique and continence outcomes. Eur Urol 56:472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schlomm T, Heinzer H, Steuber T et al (2011) Full functional-length urethral sphincter preservation during radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 60:320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rischmann P, Gelet A, Riche B et al (2017) Focal high intensity focused ultrasound of unilateral localized prostate cancer: a prospective multicentric Hemiablation Study of 111 patients. Eur Urol 71:267–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Postema AW, de Reijke TM, Ukimura O et al (2016) Standardization of definitions in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a Delphi consensus project. World J Urol 34:1373

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Ahmed HU, Arya M, Freeman A et al (2012) Do low-grade and low-volume prostate cancers bear the hallmarks of malignancy? Lancet Oncol 13:e509

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Liu W, Laitinen S, Khan S et al (2009) Copy number analysis indicates monoclonal origin of lethal metastatic prostate cancer. Nat Med 15:559

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Haffner MC, Mosbruger T, Esopi DM et al (2013) Tracking the clonal origin of lethal prostate cancer. J Clin Invest 123:4918

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Giannarini GG, Gandaglia G, Montorsi F et al (2014) Will focal therapy remain only an attractive illusion for the primary treatment of prostate cancer? J Clin Oncol 32:1299

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Isbarn H, Karakiewicz PI, Vogel S et al (2010) Unilateral prostate cancer cannot be accurately predicted in low-risk patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 77:784

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gallina A, Maccagnano C, Suardi N et al (2012) Unilateral positive biopsies in low risk prostate cancer patients diagnosed with extended transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy schemes do not predict unilateral prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 110:E64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Thompson JE, van Leeuwen PJ, Moses D et al (2016) The diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect significant prostate cancer. J Urol 195:1428

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Futterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P et al (2015) Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 68:1045

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Futterer JJ et al (2014) Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol 202:343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Crawford ED, Rove KO, Barqawi AB et al (2013) Clinical-pathologic correlation between transperineal mapping biopsies of the prostate and three-dimensional reconstruction of prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 73:778

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Yashi M, Nukui A, Tokura Y et al (2017) Performance characteristics of prostate-specific antigen density and biopsy core details to predict oncological outcome in patients with intermediate to high-risk prostate cancer underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BMC Urol 17:47

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references


This research received no specific Grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



RSP Protocol/project development, Data collection or management, Data analysis, Manuscript writing/editing. BK.-T Data collection or management, Data analysis, Manuscript writing/editing. YN Protocol/project development, Manuscript writing/editing. VV Protocol/project development, Manuscript writing/editing. FP Protocol/project development, Data analysis, Manuscript writing/editing. S.-RL.-B Protocol/project development, Data analysis, Manuscript writing/editing. MG Protocol/project development, Data collection or management, Manuscript writing/editing. HH Protocol/project development, Data collection or management, Manuscript writing/editing. DT Protocol/project development, Data collection or management, Data analysis, Manuscript writing/editing. GS Protocol/project development, Data collection or management, Data analysis, Manuscript writing/editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Georg Salomon.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human rights

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.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pompe, R.S., Kühn-Thomä, B., Nagaraj, Y. et al. Validation of the current eligibility criteria for focal therapy in men with localized prostate cancer and the role of MRI. World J Urol 36, 705–712 (2018).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: