Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chaussy CG, Thuroff S (2017) High-intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of prostate cancer: a review. J Endourol 31(S1):S30–S37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jones TA et al (2018) High intensity focused ultrasound for radiorecurrent prostate cancer: a North American clinical trial. J Urol 199(1):133–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Blana A et al (2008) Eight years’ experience with high-intensity focused ultrasonography for treatment of localized prostate cancer. Urology 72(6):1329–1333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):559–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Poissonnier L et al (2007) Control of prostate cancer by transrectal HIFU in 227 patients. Eur Urol 51(2):381–387

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):228–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):673–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):1193–1198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):1702–1707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):668–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):618–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):322–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):702–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):907–914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):965–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):969–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):14–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):185–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):140–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):1905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bill-Axelson A et al (2011) Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 364(18):1708–1717

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Wilt TJ et al (2012) Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 367(3):203–213

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hamdy FC et al (2016) 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375(15):1415–1424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 74:84–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):1228–1242

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of Regensburg, Caritas St. Josef Medical Center, Landshuter Str. 65, 93053, Regensburg, Germany

    Bernd Rosenhammer, Theresa Näger, Maximilian Burger & Johannes Bründl

  2. Department of Urology, Asklepios Hospital Bad Tölz, Bad Tölz, Germany

    Roman Ganzer

  3. Center for Clinical Studies, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany

    Florian Zeman

  4. Department of Urology, Surgical Clinic Munich-Bogenhausen, Munich, Germany

    Hans-Martin Fritsche

  5. Department of Urology, Fürth Hospital, Fürth, Germany

    Andreas Blana

Authors
  1. Bernd Rosenhammer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roman Ganzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Florian Zeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Theresa Näger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hans-Martin Fritsche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Andreas Blana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Maximilian Burger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Johannes Bründl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

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.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernd Rosenhammer.

Ethics declarations

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.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 70 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rosenhammer, B., Ganzer, R., Zeman, F. et al. Oncological long-term outcome of whole gland HIFU and open radical prostatectomy: a comparative analysis. World J Urol 37, 2073–2080 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2613-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2613-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation