Endoscopic Resection Improved High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation Outcomes for Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies
Vol. 20 (2023),
25 December 2022
Purpose: High-intensity focused ultrasound ablation (HIFU) is emerging as more data on its efficacy arises for prostate cancer (PCa). However, it is indefinite whether to combine endoscopic resection and uncertain to say who the ideal candidates are for the combined treatment. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to compare outcomes of sole HIFU therapy with that of HIFU in combination with endoscopic resection in patients with localized PCa.
Materials and Methods: Electronic databases were searched following the PRISMA guidelines and PICOS formats. The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) studies on HIFU for PCa patients; 2) comparative studies on HIFU in combination with endoscopic resection for localized PCa men. Exclusion criteria include non-comparative studies and salvage HIFU therapy. Meta-analysis results were mainly present using forest plots. Sensitivity analysis and Egger's test were adopted to determine the stability and assess the publication bias.
Results: Six comparative studies with 767 patients were eligible, including 487 cases in the combination therapy group and 280 cases in the monotherapy group. There was no statistical difference in age, preoperative PSA levels, and prostate volume between two groups. No statistical difference was found in postoperative PSA nadir (MD=-0.02, 95%CI: -0.35 to 0.31, P=0.90), disease-free survival rate (RR=0.95, 95%CI: 0.83 to 1.09, P=0.47), and preoperative IPSS score (MD=-0.69, 95%CI: -1.63 to 0.26, P=0.15; I2=8%) between two groups. The combination therapy group had significantly lower postoperative IPSS score (MD=-5.49, 95%CI: -6.47 to -4.51, P<0.001) and shorter catheterization time (MD=-13.70, 95%CI: -19.24 to -8.16, P<0.001) than the monotherapy group. The rates of urinary incontinence (7.4% vs. 13.9%, RR=0.45, 95%CI: 0.29 to 0.70, P=0.0004; I2=4%), acute urinary retention (6.8% vs. 10.5%, RR=0.36, 95%CI: 0.14 to 0.89, P=0.03; I2=0%), urinary tract infection (10% vs. 33%, RR=0.27, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.4, P<0.001; I2=0%), epididymitis (1.2% vs. 15.7%, RR=0.11, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.59, P=0.01; I2=0%), and urethral stricture (7.1% vs. 23.2%, RR=0.3, 95%CI: 0.18 to 0.51, P<0.001; I2=0%) in the combination therapy group were all significantly lower than that in the monotherapy group. Sensitivity analysis revealed findings were convincing and no publication bias (P=0.62) was observed using Egger’s test.
Conclusion: It appears that the addition of endoscopic resection to the HIFU operation might not impact oncologic outcomes and could show better functional outcomes compared to the HIFU monotherapy in localized PCa patients.
- prostate cancer; high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation; endoscopic resections; meta-analysis
How to Cite
Grozescu T, Popa F. Prostate cancer between prognosis and adequate/proper therapy. J Med Life. 2017;10:5-12.
Drost FH, Osses DF, Nieboer D, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ, et al. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;4:Cd012663.
Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2021;79:243-62.
Cooperberg MR, Lin DW, Morgan TM, Chapin BF, Chen RC, Eggener SE. Active Surveillance: Very Much "Preferred" for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2022;207:262-4.
Begg CB, Riedel ER, Bach PB, Kattan MW, Schrag D, Warren JL, et al. Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1138-44.
Gershman B, Meier SK, Jeffery MM, Moreira DM, Tollefson MK, Kim SP, et al. Redefining and Contextualizing the Hospital Volume-Outcome Relationship for Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Implications for Centralization of Care. J Urol. 2017;198:92-9.
Polascik TJ, Mouraviev V. Focal therapy for prostate cancer is a reasonable treatment option in properly selected patients. Urology. 2009;74:726-30.
Donaldson IA, Alonzi R, Barratt D, Barret E, Berge V, Bott S, et al. Focal therapy: patients, interventions, and outcomes--a report from a consensus meeting. Eur Urol. 2015;67:771-7.
Valerio M, Cerantola Y, Eggener SE, Lepor H, Polascik TJ, Villers A, et al. New and Established Technology in Focal Ablation of the Prostate: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol. 2017;71:17-34.
Ward JF, Nakanishi H, Pisters L, Babaian RJ, Troncoso P. Cancer ablation with regional templates applied to prostatectomy specimens from men who were eligible for focal therapy. BJU Int. 2009;104:490-7.
Fry FJ, Ades HW, Fry WJ. Production of reversible changes in the central nervous system by ultrasound. Science. 1958;127:83-4.
Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol. 2011;59:61-71.
Dababou S, Marrocchio C, Scipione R, Erasmus HP, Ghanouni P, Anzidei M, et al. High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Pain Management in Patients with Cancer. Radiographics. 2018;38:603-23.
Arrigoni F, Napoli A, Bazzocchi A, Zugaro L, Scipione R, Bruno F, et al. Magnetic-resonance-guided focused ultrasound treatment of non-spinal osteoid osteoma in children: multicentre experience. Pediatr Radiol. 2019;49:1209-16.
Verpalen IM, Anneveldt KJ, Nijholt IM, Schutte JM, Dijkstra JR, Franx A, et al. Magnetic resonance-high intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU) therapy of symptomatic uterine fibroids with unrestrictive treatment protocols: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2019;120:108700.
Maestroni U, Tafuri A, Dinale F, Campobasso D, Antonelli A, Ziglioli F. Oncologic outcome of salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) in radiorecurrent prostate cancer. A systematic review. Acta Biomed. 2021;92:e2021191.
Panzone J, Byler T, Bratslavsky G, Goldberg H. Transrectal Ultrasound in Prostate Cancer: Current Utilization, Integration with mpMRI, HIFU and Other Emerging Applications. Cancer Manag Res. 2022;14:1209-28.
Schmid FA, Schindele D, Mortezavi A, Spitznagel T, Sulser T, Schostak M, et al. Prospective multicentre study using high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for the focal treatment of prostate cancer: Safety outcomes and complications. Urol Oncol. 2020;38:225-30.
Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71:618-29.
Blana A, Hierl J, Rogenhofer S, Lunz JC, Wieland WF, Walter B, et al. Factors Predicting for Formation of Bladder Outlet Obstruction After High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound in Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer. Urology. 2008;71:863-7.
Hong SK, Lee H. Outcomes of partial gland ablation using high intensity focused ultrasound for prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2022.
Nair SM, Hatiboglu G, Relle J, Hetou K, Hafron J, Harle C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation in patients with localised prostate cancer: 3-year outcomes of a prospective Phase I study. BJU Int. 2021;127:544-52.
Klotz L, Pavlovich CP, Chin J, Hatiboglu G, Koch M, Penson D, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Transurethral Ultrasound Ablation of Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2021;205:769-79.
Rebillard X, Soulié M, Chartier-Kastler E, Davin JL, Mignard JP, Moreau JL, et al. High-intensity focused ultrasound in prostate cancer; a systematic literature review of the French Association of Urology. BJU Int. 2008;101:1205-13.
Chaussy C, Thueroff S. Local radical tumor ablation through combined transurethral resection and transrectal high intensity focused ultrasound: A valid therapy to treat high risk prostate cancer ? Journal of Urology. 2016;195:e201-e2.
Christian C, Stefan T. Transurethral prostate resection (TURP) before high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) therapy of prostate cancer (PCA) is there an advantage in immediate or delayed HIFU treatment. Journal of Endourology. 2011;25:A2-A3.
Thueroff S, Neumayr A, Bosl M, Kiel H, Steil W, Chaussy C. Modified transurethral resection before high intensity focused ultrasound (rHIFU) efficacy and side effects: Experience and analysis of 1.000 cases. Journal of Endourology. 2009;23:A13.
Thueroff S, Chaussy C. Impact of Transurethral Resection (TUR) before Robotic High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (RHIFU) therapy in prostate cancer. Urology. 2009;74:S134.
Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25:603-5.
Baumunk D, Andersen C, Heile U, Ebbing J, Cash H, Porsch M, et al. [High-intensity focussed ultrasound in low-risk prostate cancer - oncological outcome and postinterventional quality of life of an inexperienced therapy centre in comparison with an experienced therapy centre]. Aktuelle Urol. 2013;44:285-92.
Sumitomo M, Asakuma J, Sato A, Ito K, Nagakura K, Asano T. Transurethral resection of the prostate immediately after high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment for prostate cancer. Int J Urol. 2010;17:924-30.
Otsuki H, Sumitomo M, Umeda S, Shirotake S, Tobe M, Ito K, et al. Transurethral resection of prostate just following high intensity focused ultrasound in localized prostate cancer -Trial for early removal of the urethral catheter. Acta Urologica Japonica. 2008;54:189-95.
Poissonnier L, Chapelon JY, Rouvière O, Curiel L, Bouvier R, Martin X, et al. Control of prostate cancer by transrectal HIFU in 227 patients. Eur Urol. 2007;51:381-7.
Chaussy C, Thüroff S. The status of high-intensity focused ultrasound in the treatment of localized prostate cancer and the impact of a combined resection. Current Urology Reports. 2003;4:248-52.
Horiuchi A, Muto S, Horie S. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate followed by high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment for patients with huge prostate adenoma and localized prostate cancer: 5-Year follow-up. Prostate International. 2016;4:49-53.
Hopstaken JS, Bomers JGR, Sedelaar MJP, Valerio M, Fütterer JJ, Rovers MM. An Updated Systematic Review on Focal Therapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: What Has Changed over the Past 5 Years? European Urology. 2022;81:5-33.
Uchida T, Shoji S, Nakano M, Hongo S, Nitta M, Murota A, et al. Transrectal high-intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: eight-year experience. Int J Urol. 2009;16:881-6.
Gratzke C, Bachmann A, Descazeaud A, Drake MJ, Madersbacher S, Mamoulakis C, et al. EAU Guidelines on the Assessment of Non-neurogenic Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms including Benign Prostatic Obstruction. Eur Urol. 2015;67:1099-109.
He Y, Tan P, He M, Hu L, Ai J, Yang L, et al. The primary treatment of prostate cancer with high-intensity focused ultrasound: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99:e22610.
Ripert T, Azémar MD, Ménard J, Barbe C, Messaoudi R, Bayoud Y, et al. Six years' experience with high-intensity focused ultrasonography for prostate cancer: oncological outcomes using the new 'Stuttgart' definition for biochemical failure. BJU Int. 2011;107:1899-905.
Ganzer R, Fritsche HM, Brandtner A, Bründl J, Koch D, Wieland WF, et al. Fourteen-year oncological and functional outcomes of high-intensity focused ultrasound in localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2013;112:322-9.
Muller BG, van den Bos W, Brausi M, Fütterer JJ, Ghai S, Pinto PA, et al. Follow-up modalities in focal therapy for prostate cancer: results from a Delphi consensus project. World J Urol. 2015;33:1503-9.
Postema AW, De Reijke TM, Ukimura O, Van den Bos W, Azzouzi AR, Barret E, et al. Standardization of definitions in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a Delphi consensus project. World J Urol. 2016;34:1373-82.
Scheltema MJ, Tay KJ, Postema AW, de Bruin DM, Feller J, Futterer JJ, et al. Utilization of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in clinical practice and focal therapy: report from a Delphi consensus project. World J Urol. 2017;35:695-701.
- Abstract Viewed: 74 times
- Just Accepted-7378 Downloaded: 53 times