Focal therapy for prostate cancer: patient selection and evaluation

References

• Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur. Urol.53, 68–80 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de la Rosette J, Ahmed H, Barentsz J et al. Focal therapy in prostate cancer – report from a consensus panel. J. Endourol.24, 775–780 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polascik TJ, Mayes JM, Mouraviev V. Nerve-sparing focal cryoablation of prostate cancer. Curr. Opin. Urol.19, 182–187 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sartor O, Hricak H, Wheeler TM et al. Evaluating localized prostate cancer and identifying candidates for focal therapy. Urology72(Suppl. 6A), 12–24 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Wheeler TM et al. Counseling men with prostate cancer: a nomogram for predicting the presence of small, moderately differentiated, confined tumors. J. Urol.170, 1792–1797 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA280, 969–974 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieberfarb ME, Schultz D, Whittington R et al. Using PSA, biopsy Gleason score, clinical stage, and the percentage of positive biopsies to identify optimal candidates for prostate-only radiation therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys.53, 898–903 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scherr D, Swindle PW, Scardino PT. National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for the management of prostate cancer. Urology61(Suppl. 1), 14–24 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lambert EH, Bolte K, Masson P, Katz AE. Focal cryosurgery: encouraging health outcomes for unifocal prostate cancer. Urology69, 1117–1120 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Onik G. Rationale for a ‘male lumpectomy’, a prostate cancer targeted approach using cryoablation: results in 21 patients with at least 2 years of follow-up. Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol.31, 98–106 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bostwick DG. Gleason grading of prostatic needle biopsies. Correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. Am. J. Surg. Pathol.18, 796 (1994).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am. J. Surg. Pathol.21, 566 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Djavan B, Kadesky K, Klopukh B, Marberger M, Roehrborn C. Gleason scores from prostate biopsies obtained with 18-gauge biopsy needles poorly predict Gleason scores of radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur. Urol.33, 261–270 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzsimons NJ, Presti JC Jr, Kane CJ et al. Is biopsy Gleason score independently associated with biochemical progression following radical prostatectomy after adjusting for pathological Gleason score? J. Urol.176, 2453–2458 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cheng L, Jones TD, Pan CX et al. Anatomic distribution and pathologic characterization of small-volume prostate cancer (<0.5 ml) in whole-mount prostatectomy specimens. Mod. Pathol.18, 1022–1026 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Kantoff PW, Carroll PR. Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. J. Urol.178, S14–S19 (2007).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meiers I, Waters DJ, Bostwick DG. Preoperative prediction of multifocal prostate cancer and application of focal therapy: review 2007. Urology70, 3–8 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wise AM, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Clayton JL. Morphologic and clinical significance of multifocal prostate cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology60, 264–269 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mouraviev V, Mayes JM, Sun L et al. Prostate cancer laterality as a rationale of focal ablative therapy for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Cancer110, 906–910 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tareen B, Sankin A, Godoy G, Temkin S, Lepor H, Taneja SS. Appropriate candidates for hemiablative focal therapy are infrequently encountered among men selected for radical prostatectomy in contemporary cohort. Urology73, 351–354 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Polascik TJ, Mayes JM, Schroeck FR et al. Patient selection for hemiablative focal therapy of prostate cancer variables predictive of tumor unilaterality based upon radical prostatectomy. Cancer115, 2104–2110 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Nolley R. Prognostic factors for multifocal prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of significance of secondary cancers. J. Urol.170, 459–463 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohori M, Eastham JA, Koh H et al. Is focal therapy reasonable in patients with early stage prostate cancer (CaP): an analysis of radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens. J. Urol.175(Suppl.), 507 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Arora R, Koch MO, Eble JN, Ulbright TM, Li L, Cheng L. Heterogeneity of Gleason grade in multifocal adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Cancer100, 2362–2366 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eggener SE, Scardino PT, Carroll PR et al.; International Task Force on Prostate Cancer and the Focal Lesion Paradigm. Focal therapy for localized prostate cancer: a critical appraisal of rationale and modalities. J. Urol.178, 2260–2267 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng L, Jones TD, Pan CX et al. Anatomic distribution and pathologic characterization of small-volume prostate cancer (<0.5 ml) in whole-mount prostatectomy specimens. Mod. Pathol.18, 1022–1026 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yoon GS, Wang W, Osunkoya AO et al. Residual tumor potentially left behind after local ablation therapy in prostate adenocarcinoma. J. Urol.179, 2203–2206 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Leibovich BC, Blute ML, Bostwick DG et al. Proximity of prostate cancer to the urethra: implications for minimally invasive ablative therapies. Urology56, 726–729 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J et al. Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J. Urol.175, 1605–1612 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scattoni V, Zlotta A, Montironi R et al. Extended and saturation prostatic biopsy in the diagnosis and characterisation of prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur. Urol.52, 1309–1322 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tareen B, Godoy G, Sankin A, Temkin S, Lepor H, Taneja SS. Can contemporary transrectal prostate biopsy accurately select candidates for hemi-ablative focal therapy of prostate cancer? BJU Int.104, 195–199 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scales CD, Presti JC, Kane CJ et al. Predicting unilateral prostate cancer based on biopsy features: implications for focal ablative therapy – results from the SEARCH database. J. Urol.178, 1249–1252 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulte RT, Wood DP, Daignault S et al. Utility of extended pattern prostate biopsies for tumor localization: pathologic correlations after radical prostatectomy. Cancer113, 1559–1565 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quann P, Jarrard DF, Huang W. Current prostate biopsy protocols cannot reliably identify patients for focal therapy: correlation of low-risk prostate cancer on biopsy with radical prostatectomy findings. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Pathol.3, 401–407 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Abdollah F, Scattoni V, Raber M et al. The role of transrectal saturation biopsy in tumor localization: pathological correlation after retropubic radical prostatectomy and implication for focal ablative therapy. BJU Int.108(3), 366–371 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Crawford ED, Wilson SS, Torkko KC et al. Clinical staging of prostate cancer: a computer-simulated study of transperineal prostate biopsy. BJU Int.96, 999–1004 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Onik G, Barzell W. Transperineal 3D mapping biopsy of the prostate: an essential tool in selecting patients for focal prostate cancer therapy. Urol. Oncol.26, 506–510 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barzell WE, Melamed MR. Appropriate patient selection in the focal treatment of prostate cancer: the role of transperineal 3-dimensional pathologic mapping of the prostate – a 4-year experience. Urology70(6 Suppl.), 27–35 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merrick GS, Taubenslag W, Andreini H et al. The morbidity of transperineal template-guided prostate mapping biopsy. BJU Int.101, 1524–1529 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Andriole GL, Bullock TL, Belani JS et al. Is there a better way to biopsy the prostate? Prospects for a novel transrectal systematic biopsy approach. Urology70(Suppl. 6), 22–26 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Megwalu II, Ferguson GG, Wei JT et al. Evaluation of a novel precision template-guided biopsy system for detecting prostate cancer. BJU Int.102, 546–550 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eggener S, Salomon G, Scardino PT, De la Rosette J, Polascik TJ, Brewster S. Focal therapy for prostate cancer: possibilities and limitations. Eur. Urol.58, 57–64 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wink M, Frauscher F, Cosgrove D et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and prostate cancer; a multicentre European research coordination project. Eur. Urol.54, 982–993 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gravas S, Mamoulakis C, Rioja J et al. Advances in ultrasound technology in oncologic urology. Urol. Clin. N. Am.36, 133–145 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mitterberger M, Pinggera GM, Horninger W et al. Comparison of contrast enhanced color Doppler targeted biopsy to conventional systematic biopsy: impact on Gleason score. J. Urol.178, 464–468 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pallwein L, Mitterberger M, Struve P et al. Real-time elastography for detecting prostate cancer: preliminary experience. BJU Int.100, 42–46 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Salomon G, Kollerman J, Thederan I et al. Evaluation of prostate cancer detection with ultrasound real-time elastography: a comparison with step section pathological analysis after radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol.54, 1354–1362 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braeckman J, Autier P, Garbar C et al. Computer-aided ultrasonography (HistoScanning): a novel technology for locating and characterizing prostate cancer. BJU Int.10, 1560–1565 (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Braeckman J, Autier P, Soviany C et al. The accuracy of transrectal ultrasonography supplemented with computer-aided ultrasonography for detecting small prostate cancers. BJU Int.102, 1560–1565 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kirkham AP, Emberton M, Allen C. How good is MRI at detecting and characterising cancer within the prostate? Eur. Urol.50, 1163–1175 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nogueira L, Wang L, Fine SW et al. Focal treatment or observation of prostate cancer: pretreatment accuracy of transrectal ultrasound biopsy and T2-weighted MRI. Urology75, 472–477 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puech P, Huglo D, Petyt G et al. Imaging of organ-confined prostate cancer: Functional ultrasound, MRI and PET/computed tomography. Curr. Opin. Urol.19, 168–176 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Umbehr M, Bachmann LM, Held U et al. combined magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Urol.55, 575–591 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Villers A, Lemaitre L, Haffner J, Puech P. Current status of MRI for the diagnosis, staging and prognosis of prostate cancer: implications for focal therapy and active surveillance. Curr. Opin. Urol.19, 274–282 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim CK, Park BK. Update of prostate magnetic resonance imaging at 3T. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr.32, 163–172 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parivar F, Hricak H, Shinohara K et al. Detection of locally recurrent prostate cancer after cryosurgery: evaluation by transrectal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and three-dimensional proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Urology48, 594–599 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouviere O, Souchon R, Salomir R et al. Transrectal high intensity focused ultrasound ablation of prostate cancer: effective requiring accurate imaging. Eur. J. Radiol.63, 317–327 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lindner U Lawrentschuk N, Weersink RA et al. Focal laser ablation for prostate cancer followed by radical prostatectomy: validation of focal therapy and imaging accuracy. Eur. Urol.57, 1111–1114 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Visschere PJ, De Meerleer GO, Futterer JJ, Villeirs GM. Role of MRI in follow-up after focal therapy for prostate carcinoma. Am. J. Roentgenol.194, 1427–1433 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mouraviev V, Mayes JM, Polascik TJ. Pathologic basis of focal therapy for early-stage prostate cancer. Nat. Rev. Urol.6, 205–215 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar