Evaluation of Outcomes Following Focal Ablative Therapy for Treatment of Localized Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients >70 Years: A Multi-institute, Multi-energy 15-Year Experience

Purpose: In older patients who do not wish to undergo watchful waiting, focal therapy could be an alternative to the more morbid radical treatment. We evaluated the role of focal therapy in patients 70 years and older as an alternative management modality. Materials and Methods: A total of 649 patients across 11 UK sites receiving focal high-intensity focused ultrasound or cryotherapy between June 2006 and July 2020 reported within the UK-based HEAT (HIFU Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment) and ICE (International Cryotherapy Evaluation) registries were evaluated. Primary outcome was failure-free survival, defined by need for more than 1 focal reablation, progression to radical treatment, development of metastases, need for systemic treatment, or prostate cancer–specific death. This was compared to the failure-free survival in patients undergoing radical treatment via a propensity score weighted analysis. Results: Median age was 74 years (IQR: 72, 77) and median follow-up 24 months (IQR: 12, 41). Sixty percent had intermediate-risk disease and 35% high-risk disease. A total of 113 patients (17%) required further treatment. Sixteen had radical treatment and 44 required systemic treatment. Failure-free survival was 82% (95% CI: 76%-87%) at 5 years. Comparing patients who had radical therapy to those who had focal therapy, 5-year failure-free survival was 96% (95% CI: 93%-100%) and 82% (95% CI: 75%-91%) respectively (P < .001). Ninety-three percent of those in the radical treatment arm had received radiotherapy as their primary treatment with its associated use of androgen deprivation therapy, thereby leading to potential overestimation of treatment success in the radical treatment arm, especially given the similar metastases-free and overall survival rates seen. Conclusions: We propose focal therapy to be an effective management option for the older or comorbid patient who is unsuitable for or not willing to undergo radical treatment.

[1]  J. Oxley,et al.  Fifteen-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer. , 2023, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  E. Arias,et al.  Mortality in the United States, 2021. , 2022, NCHS data brief.

[3]  C. Ogden,et al.  Cancer Control Outcomes Following Focal Therapy Using High-intensity Focused Ultrasound in 1379 Men with Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: A Multi-institute 15-year Experience. , 2022, European urology.

[4]  H. G. van der Poel,et al.  A Systematic Review of Focal Ablative Therapy for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer in Comparison with Standard Management Options: Limitations of the Available Evidence and Recommendations for Clinical Practice and Further Research. , 2021, European urology oncology.

[5]  L. Klotz,et al.  Current evidence for focal therapy and partial gland ablation for organ-confined prostate cancer: systematic review of literature published in the last 2 years , 2020, Current opinion in urology.

[6]  Q. Wei,et al.  The primary treatment of prostate cancer with high-intensity focused ultrasound , 2020, Medicine.

[7]  X. Cathelineau,et al.  Impact of Focal Versus Whole Gland Ablation for Prostate Cancer on Sexual Function and Urinary Continence. , 2020, The Journal of urology.

[8]  C. Ogden,et al.  Focal therapy compared to radical prostatectomy for non-metastatic prostate cancer: a propensity score-matched study , 2020, Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases.

[9]  M. Sydes,et al.  Comparative Healthcare Research Outcomes of Novel Surgery in prostate cancer (IP4-CHRONOS): A prospective, multi-centre therapeutic phase II parallel Randomised Control Trial. , 2020, Contemporary clinical trials.

[10]  A. Finelli,et al.  What are the limits of focal therapy for localized prostate cancer? For: GG3-5 may be considered. , 2020, European urology focus.

[11]  D. Parekh,et al.  Focal therapy for localized prostate cancer: Where do we stand? , 2020, European urology focus.

[12]  H. Ahmed,et al.  Assessment of Return to Baseline Urinary and Sexual Function Following Primary Focal Cryotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer. , 2019, European urology focus.

[13]  E. Barret,et al.  Comprehensive Evaluation of Focal Therapy Complications in Prostate Cancer: A Standardized Methodology. , 2019, Journal of endourology.

[14]  H. Ahmed,et al.  A comparison of time taken to return to baseline erectile function following focal and whole gland ablative therapies for localized prostate cancer: A systematic review. , 2017, Urologic oncology.

[15]  D. D. de Bruin,et al.  Utilization of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in clinical practice and focal therapy: report from a Delphi consensus project , 2016, World Journal of Urology.

[16]  J. Fütterer,et al.  Follow-up modalities in focal therapy for prostate cancer: results from a Delphi consensus project , 2015, World Journal of Urology.

[17]  T. Sugihara,et al.  Management of prostate cancer in older patients: updated recommendations of a working group of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology. , 2014, The Lancet. Oncology.

[18]  F. Montorsi,et al.  Impact of age and comorbidities on long-term survival of patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional competing-risks analysis. , 2013, European urology.

[19]  E. Messing,et al.  Prostate cancer in the elderly: frequency of advanced disease at presentation and disease-specific mortality , 2011 .

[20]  G. Naglie,et al.  30-day mortality and major complications after radical prostatectomy: influence of age and comorbidity. , 2005, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[21]  W. Catalona,et al.  Potency, continence and complications in 3,477 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. , 2004, The Journal of urology.