Oncologic outcome of salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) in radiorecurrent prostate cancer. A systematic review

Main Article Content

Umberto Maestroni
Alessandro Tafuri
Francesco Dinale
Davide Campobasso
Alessandro Antonelli
Francesco Ziglioli

Keywords

High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound, Hifu, Salvage Hifu, prostate cancer, cancer recurrence, radiotherapy, EBRT, minimally-invasive technique

Abstract

Introduction. External Beam Radiation Therapy (EBRT) is one of the option available for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. In patients with radiorecurrent localized prostate cancer, Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) is one of the most common therapeutic strategies. However, in the last decades, other salvage treatment options have been investigated, such as brachytherapy, cryoablation and High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (Hifu). Material and methods. The oncologic outcome of Hifu in a salvage setting after EBRT failure was investigated. We reviewed the literature from 2005 to 2020 in order to report the oncologic outcome of the technique. Results. A total of 1241 patients were analyzed, with a mean age of 68.6 years and a PSA value of 5.87 ng/mL before treatment. Mean follow-up was 24.3 months after treatment, ranging from 3 to 168 months. Conclusion. Our review of the literature revealed that salvage Hifu is effective in the treatment of radiorecurrent clinically localized prostate cancer, with an overall survival of 85.2% at 5 years.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 274 | PDF Downloads 72

References

1. Bolla M, Van Tienhoven G, Warde P, et al. External radiation with or without long-term androgen suppression for prostate cancer with high metastatic risk: 10-year results of an EORTC randomised study. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 1066-73
2. Bannuru RR, Dvorak T, Obadan N, et al. Comparative evaluation of radiation treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155: 151-78
3. Agarwal PK, Sadetsky N, Konety BR, et al. Cancer of the prostate strategic Urological Research Endeavor (CaPSURE). Treatment failure after primary and salvage therapy for prostate cancer: likelihood, patterns of care, and outcomes. Cancer 2008; 112: 307-14
4. Dearnaley D, Syndikus I, Mossop H, et al. Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomized, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17: 1047-60
5. Murat FJ, Poissonnier L, Rabilloud M, et al. Mid-term results demonstrate salvage High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) asan effective and acceptably morbid salvage treatment option for locally radiorecurrent prostate cancer. Eur urol 2009; 55: 640-7. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.04.091
6. Coen JJ, Zietman AL, Thakral H, et al. Radical radiation for localized prostate cancer: local persistence of disease results in a late wave of metastases. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 3199-204
7. Golbari NM, Katz AE. Salvage therapy options for local prostate cancer recurrence after primary radiotherapy: a literature review. CurrUrol Rep 2017; 18: 63
8. Kimura M, Mouraviev V, Tsivian M, et al. Current salvage methods for recurrent prostate cancer after failure of primary radiotherapy. BJU Int 2010; 105: 191-201
9. Lynn JG, Zwermer RL, Chick AJ, Miller AE. A new method for the generation and use of focused ultrasound in experimental biology. J Gen Physiol 1942; 26: 179-93
10. Lynn JG, Zwemer RL, Chick AJ. The biological application of focused ultrasound waves. Science 1942; 96: 119-20
11. Fry WJ, Barnard JW, Fry FJ, Krumins RF, Brennan JF. Ultrasonically produced localized selective lesions in the central nervous system. Am J Phys Med 1955; 34: 413-23
12. Barnett SB, Ter Harr GR, Ziskin MC, Nyborg WL, Maeda K, Bang J. Current status of research on biophysical effect of ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 1994; 20: 205-18
13. Madersbacher S, Pedevilla M, Vingers L, Susani M, Marberger M. Effect of high-intesity focused ultrasound on prostate cancer in vivo. Cancer Res 1995; 55: 3346-51
14. Kennedy JR, Ter Jaar GR, Cranston D. High intensity focused ultrasound: surgery of the future? Br J Radiol 2003; 76: 590-599
15. Kim Y, Rhim H, Choi MJ, Lim HK, Choi D. High-intensity focused ultrasound therapy: an overview for radiologists. Korean J Radiol 2008; 9: 291-302
16. Foster RS, Bihrle R, Sanghvi NT, Fry FJ, Donohue JP. High-intensity focused ultrasound in the treatment of prostatic disease. Eur Urol 1993; 23 (S1): 29-33
17. Ter Haar G, Coussios C. High-intensity focused ultrasound: physical principles and devices. Int J Hyperthermia 2007; 23: 89-104
18. Madersbacher S, Kratzik C, Marberger M. Prostatic tissue ablation by transrectal high intensity focused ultrasound: histological impact and clinical application. Ultrasonic Sonochemistry 1997; 4: 175-9
19. Vaezy S, Andrew M, Kaczkowski P, Krum L. Image-guided acoustic therapy. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2001; 3: 375-90
20. Coleman JA, Scardino PT. Targeted prostate cancer ablation: energy options. CurrOpinUrol 2013; 23: 123-8
21. Wenne JW, Preusser T, Günther M. High-intensity focused ultrasound: Principles, therapy, guidance, simulations and applications. Z Med Phys 2012; 22: 311-22
22. Crouzet S, Murat FJ, Pasticier G, Cassier P, Chapelon JY, Gelet A. High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for prostate cancer: current clinical status, outcome and future perspectives. Int J Hyperthermia 2010; 26: 796-803
23. Beerlage HP, van Leenders GJ, Oosterhof GO, Witjes JA, Ruijter ET, van der Kaa CA, et al. High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) followed after one to two weeks by radical retropubic prostatectomy. Results of a prospective study. Prostate 1999; 39: 41-6
24. Kennedy JE, Ter Haar GR, Cranston D. High intensity focused ultrasound: Surgery of the future? Br J Radiol 2003; 76: 590-9
25. Bozzini G, Colin P, Nevoux P, Villers A, Mordon S, Betrouni N. Focal therapy of prostate cancer: energy and procedures. Urol Oncol 2013; 31: 155-167
26. Susani M, Madersbacher S, Kratzik C, Vingers L, Margerger M. Morphology of tissue destruction induced by focused ultrasound. Eur Urol 1993; 23 (Suppl. 1): 34-8
27. Stride EP, Coussios CC. Cavitation and contrast: the use of bubbles in ultrasound images and therapy. Proc Inst Mech Engl 2010; 224: 171-91
28. Chen H, Li X, Wang S. High-speed observation of cavitation bubble clouds near a tissue boundary in high-intensity focused ultrasound fields. Ultrasonics 2009; 49: 289-92
29. Uchida T, Ohkusa H, Yamashita H, Shoji S, Nagata Y, Hyodo T, et al. Five years experience of transrectal high-intensity ultrasound using the Sonablate device in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Int J Urol 2006; 13: 228-33
30. Rouviere O, Lyonnet D, Raudrant A, Colin-Pangaud C, Chapelon JY, Bouvier R, et al. MRI appearance of prostate following transrectal HIFU ablation of localized cancer. Eur Urol 2001; 40: 265-74
31. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 2010; 8: 336-41. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007
32. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomized and non-randomized studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BJU Int 2017: 358. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4008
33. Gallotta A, Ziglioli F, Ferretti S, et al. A novel algorithm for the prediction of prostate cancer in clinically suspected patients. Cancer Biomark 2013; 13:227-34 doi: 10.3233/CBM-130357
34. Ziglioli F, Maestroni U, Manna C, et al. Mutiparametric MRI in the management of prostate cancer: an update – a narrative review. Glan Surg. 2020; 9: 2321-30 doi: 10.21037/gs-20-561
35. Bates AS, Ayers J, Kostakopoulos N, et al. A systematic review of focal ablative therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer in comparison with standard management options: limitation of the available evidence and recommendations for clinical practice and further research. Eur Urol Oncol 2021; S2588-9311(20)30216-9.doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.12.008
36. Guo RQ, Guo XX, Li YM, et al. Crioablation, High-intensity focused ultrasound, irreversibile electroporation and vascular targeted photodynamic therapy: a sistemi review and meta-analysis. Int J ClinOncol 2021. doi: 10.1007/s10147-020-01847-y
37. Ziglioli F, Baciarello M, Maspero G, et al. Oncologic outcome, side-effects and comorbidity of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). A review. Ann Med Surg 2020; 56:110-15. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2020.05.029
38. Chaussy CG, Thuroff S. High-intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of the prostate cancer: a review. J Endourol 2017; 31(S1):S30-S37. doi: 10.1089/end.2016.0548
39. Abreu AL. Peretsman S, Iwata A, et al. High Intensity Focused Ultrasound Hemigland Ablation for Prostate Cancer: Initial Outcome of a United States Series. J Urol 2020; 204: 741-7. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001126
40. Hatiboglu G, Popeneciu IV, Deppert M, et al. Quality of life and functional out come after intravescicaldesobstruction and HIFU treatment for localized prostate cancer. BMC Urol 2017; 17: 5. doi: 10.1186/s12894-017-0198-2.
41. Veereman G, Jonckherr P, Desomer A, et al. Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of high-intensity focused ultrasound for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol Focus 2015; 1: 158-70. doi:10.1016/j.euf.2015.04.006
42. Baydoun A, Traughber B, Morris N, et al. Outcomes and toxicities in patients treated with definitive focal therapy for primary prostate cancer: systematic review. Future Oncol 2017; 13: 649-63. doi: 10.2217/fon-2016-0354
43. Maestroni U, Dinale F, Minari R, et al. High-intensity focused ultrasound for prostate cancer: long term followup and complication rate. AdvUrol. 2012; 2012: 960835. doi: 10.1155/2012/960835
44. Zelefsky MJ, Kollmeier M, McBride S, et al. Five-year outcomes of a phase 1 dose-escalation study using stereotactic body radiosurgery for patients with low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 104: 42-9
45. Windmark A, Klepp O, Solberg A, et al. Endocrine treatment, with or without radiotherapy in locally advanced prostate cancer (SPCG-7/SFUO-3): an open randomised, phase III trial. Lancet 2009; 373: 301-08
46. Warde P, Mason M, Ding K, et al. Combined androgen deprivation therapy and radiation therapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2011; 378: 2104-11
47. Parekh A, Graham PL, Nguyen PL. Cancer control and complications of salvage therapy after failure of radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Semin Radiat Oncol 2013; 23: 222-34. doi: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2013.01.006
48. Valle LF, Lehrer EJ, Markovic D, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of local salvage therapies after radiotherapy for prostate cancer (MASTER). Eur Urol 2020; S0302-2838(20)30874-5.doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.11.010.
49. Khoo CC, Miah S, Connor MJ, et al. A systematic review of salvage focal terapie for localized non metastatic radiorecurrent prostate cancer. TranslAndrolUrol 2020; 9: 1535-1545. doi: 10.21037/tau.2019.08.21
50. Maestroni U, Morandin F, Ferretti S, et al. Recurrence of prostate cancer after HIFU. Proposal of a novel predictive index. Acta Biomed. 2018; 89: 220-226. doi: 10.23750/abm.v89i2.6730
51. Baco E, Gelet A, Crouzet S, et al. Hemi-salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) unilateral radiorecurrent prostate cancer: a prospective two-centre study. BJU Int 2014; 114: 532-40. doi: 10.1111/bju.12545
52. Crouzet S, Blana A, Murat FJ, et al. Salvage high-intensity focused ultrsound (HIFU) for locally recurrent prostate cancer after failed radiation therapy: multi-institutional analysis of 418 patients. BJU Int 2017; 119: 896-904. doi: 10.1111/bju.13766.
53. Devos B, Al HajjObeid W, Andrianne C, et al. Salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound versus salvage radical prostatectomy for radiation-recurrent prostate cancer: a comparative study of oncological, functional, and toxicity outcomes. World J Urol 2019; 37: 1507-15. doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02640-x
54. Gelet A, Chapelon JY, Poissonnier L, et al. Local recurrence of prostate cancer after external beam radiotherapy: early experience of salvage therapy using high-intensity focused ultrasonography. Urol 2004; 63: 625-9. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.01.002
55. Jones TA, Chin J, Mcleod D, et al. High-intensity focused ultrasound for radio-recurrent prostate cancer: a North American clinical trial. J Urol 2018; 199: 133-9. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.06.078.
56. Kanthabalan A, Peters M, Van Vulpen M, et al. Focal salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound in radiorecurrent prostate cancer. BJU Int 2017; 120: 246-56. doi: 10.1111/bju.13831
57. Rouviere O, Sbihi L, Gelet A, et al. Salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation for prostate cancer local recurrence after external-beam radiation therapy: Prognostic value of prostate MRI. ClinRadiol 2013; 68: 661-7 doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2012.12.010
58. Shah TT. Peters M, Kanthabalan A, et al. PSA nadir as a predictive factor for biochemical disease-free survival and overall survival following whole-gland salvage HIFU following radiotherapy failure. Prost Cancer Prost Dis 2016; 19: 311-16. doi: 10.1038/pcan.2016.23
59. Siddiqui KM, Billia M, Arifin A, et al. Pathological, oncologic and functional outcomes of a prospective registry of salvage High Intensity Focused Ultrasound ablation for radiorecurrent prostate cancer. J Urol 2017; 197: 97-102 doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.092
60. Song W, Jung US, Seok Suh Y, et al. High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound as salvage therapy for patients with recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy. Korean J Urol 2014; 55: 91-6 doi: 10.4111/kju.2014.55.2.91
61. Uddin Ahmed H, Cathcart P, McCartan N, et al. Focal salvage therapy for localized prostate cancer recurrence after external beam radiotherapy. Cancer 2012; 118: 3071-8 doi: 10.1002/cncr.26631.
62. Zacharakis E, Ahmed HU, Ishaq A, et al. The feasibility and safety of high-intensity focused ultrasound as salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer following external beam radiotherapy. BJU Int. 2018; 102: 786-92 doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07775.x

Most read articles by the same author(s)