Whole-gland ablation therapy versus active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: a prospective study

被引:1
|
作者
Enikeev, Dmitry [1 ]
Taratkin, Mark [1 ]
Amosov, Alexander [1 ]
Rivas, Juan Gomez [2 ]
Podoinitsin, Alexei [3 ]
Potoldykova, Natalya [1 ]
Karageziyan, Marina [4 ]
Glybochko, Petr [1 ]
Barret, Eric [5 ]
机构
[1] Sechenov Univ, Inst Urol & Reprod Hlth, 2-1 Bolshaya Pirogovskaya St, Moscow 119991, Russia
[2] La Paz Univ Hosp, Dept Urol, Madrid, Spain
[3] Moscow Reg Res & Clin Inst Moniki, Moscow, Russia
[4] Sechenov Univ, Inst Linguist & Intercultural Commun, Moscow, Russia
[5] Inst Mutualiste Montsouris, Dept Urol, Paris, France
关键词
prostate cancer; active surveillance; low-risk; cryoablation; brachytherapy; high intensity focused ultrasound; TERM-FOLLOW-UP; CRYOTHERAPY; OUTCOMES; IMPACT;
D O I
10.5173/ceju.2020.0009
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Introduction The objective of this study is assess the outcomes of whole-gland ablation (high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), cryotherapy and brachytherapy) and active surveillance (AS) in patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Material and methods This prospective non-randomised study included 155 patients with low-risk PCa managed with either ablative therapy or AS. Follow-up included mpMRI, biopsies, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), quality of life and complications for up to 24 months. The primary endpoint was cancer progression. The secondary endpoint was the impact of each treatment on the quality of life. Results Mean total preoperative PSA was 8.8 +/- 1.5 ng/ml. Of 155 patients, 125 received treatment: 45 - HIFU; 45 - cryoablation; 35 - brachytherapy. Thirty were under AS. Mean nadir PSA levels were 0.64 +/- 0.55 ng/ml for HIFU, 0.53 +/- 0.38 ng/ml for cryoablation and 0.48 +/- 0.34 ng/ml for brachytherapy. In the AS group, mean PSA was 9.9 +/- 3.8 ng/ml. Biochemical relapse-free survival rates at 24 months were 81.8% for HIFU, 85% for cryoablation, 93.9% for brachytherapy and 93.3% for AS. In only one HIFU patient relapse was not confirmed on biopsy. Increased anxiety was found in up to 6.7% after treatment and in 36.7% of patients undergoing AS. The Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no statistical differences between the techniques. Conclusions Whole-gland ablative therapy can be considered a viable treatment modality for carefully selected patients with low-risk PCa who are reluctant to select AS due to anxiety.
引用
收藏
页码:127 / 133
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] USE OF HOLEP IN MEN ON ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE FOR LOW-RISK PROSTATE CANCER
    Schober, Jared
    Stensland, Kristian
    Mandeville, Jessica
    Moinzadeh, Alireza
    Canes, David
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 203 : E1188 - E1188
  • [42] Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: Practice across Europe
    Azmi, Aini
    Dillon, Ruth
    Marignol, Laure
    Borghesi, Simona
    Dunne, Mary
    Power, Richard
    O'Neill, Brian
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2012, 30 (05)
  • [43] Super active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer | Opinion: Yes
    Reis, Leonardo O.
    Andrade, Danilo L.
    Bianco, Fernando J., Jr.
    INTERNATIONAL BRAZ J UROL, 2019, 45 (02): : 210 - 214
  • [44] Multidisciplinary Care and Pursuit of Active Surveillance in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer
    Aizer, Ayal A.
    Paly, Jonathan J.
    Zietman, Anthony L.
    Nguyen, Paul L.
    Beard, Clair J.
    Rao, Sandhya K.
    Kaplan, Irving D.
    Niemierko, Andrzej
    Hirsch, Michelle S.
    Wu, Chin-Lee
    Olumi, Aria F.
    Michaelson, M. Dror
    D'Amico, Anthony V.
    Efstathiou, Jason A.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2012, 30 (25) : 3071 - 3076
  • [45] Active Surveillance: Very Much "Preferred" for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer
    Cooperberg, Matthew R.
    Lin, Daniel W.
    Morgan, Todd M.
    Chapin, Brian F.
    Chen, Ronald C.
    Eggener, Scott E.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2022, 207 (02): : 262 - 264
  • [46] Regional Variation in Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer in the US
    Washington, Samuel L., III
    Jeong, Chang Wook
    Lonergan, Peter E.
    Herlemann, Annika
    Gomez, Scarlett L.
    Carroll, Peter R.
    Cooperberg, Matthew R.
    JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2020, 3 (12)
  • [47] Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients on Active Surveillance: Utility of Immunohistochemistry
    Poveda, J.
    Eldefrawy, A.
    Umar, S.
    Soloway, M.
    Jorda, M.
    LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2013, 93 : 241A - 241A
  • [48] ELEVEN YEARS' EXPERIENCE OF ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE OF LOW-RISK PROSTATE CANCER
    Alvisi, Maria Francesca
    Palorini, Federica
    Badenchini, Fabio
    Rancati, Tiziana
    Avuzzi, Barbara
    Bedini, Nice
    Bellardita, Lara
    Biasoni, Davide
    Catanzaro, Mario
    Colecchia, Maurizio
    De Luca, Letizia
    Donegani, Simona
    Dordoni, Paola
    Magnani, Tiziana
    Marenghi, Cristina
    Delor, Julia Paola Menichetti
    Morlino, Sara
    Paolini, Biagio
    Stagni, Silvia
    Tesone, Antonio
    Torelli, Tullio
    Baldoin, Edoardo Tulli
    Villa, Sergio
    Villa, Silvia
    Zaffaroni, Nadia
    Nicolai, Nicola
    Salvioni, Roberto
    Valdagni, Riccardo
    ANTICANCER RESEARCH, 2017, 37 (04) : 2115 - 2117
  • [49] Active Surveillance for the Management of Low-Risk Prostate Cancer in a Japanese Cohort
    Takeda, H.
    Nakano, Y.
    Kashiwagi, Y.
    Kojima, I
    Takai, S.
    Fujita, T.
    UROLOGY, 2012, 80 (03) : S292 - S293
  • [50] Re: Treatment Preferences for Active Surveillance versus Active Treatment among Men with Low-Risk Prostate Cancer
    Penson, David F.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2017, 197 (01): : 153 - 153