Personalized Treatment Strategy in "Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Candidates" Using Irreversible Electroporation: Prospective Evaluation of Feasibility, Morbidity, Functional and Oncological Outcomes.

IF 4 3区 医学 Q1 ANDROLOGY
World Journal of Mens Health Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-18 DOI:10.5534/wjmh.230097
Ionel Valentin Popeneciu, Mirjam Naomi Mohr, Arne Strauß, Conrad Leitsmann, Lutz Trojan, Mathias Reichert
{"title":"Personalized Treatment Strategy in \"Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Candidates\" Using Irreversible Electroporation: Prospective Evaluation of Feasibility, Morbidity, Functional and Oncological Outcomes.","authors":"Ionel Valentin Popeneciu, Mirjam Naomi Mohr, Arne Strauß, Conrad Leitsmann, Lutz Trojan, Mathias Reichert","doi":"10.5534/wjmh.230097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the morbidity, functional and oncological outcome of irreversible electroporation (IRE) as a focal therapy for prostate cancer (PCa) when used in \"active surveillance (AS)\" candidates refusing standard treatment options.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>IRE was performed under general anaesthesia, and the transurethral catheter was removed one day after intervention in all patients. Pre- and post-interventional voiding parameters (measured by International Prostate Symptom Score Questionnaire [IPSS], uroflowmetry and post-void residue) were compared. Follow-up (FU) was observed over a minimum of six months, including oncological outcome (controlled by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, rebiopsy, prostate-specific antigen dynamic as well as the need and type of secondary treatment) and general functional outcome (International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire, satisfaction of the procedure).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-four patients refusing AS or standard treatment with a median FU of 18.7 months were included. IPSS showed nine patients with mild, 12 with moderate and two with severe obstructive voiding symptoms pre-intervention (focal IRE). Median IPSS pre-IRE was 9 points, 8.5 (p=0.341) at six months and 10 (p=0.392) after 12 months, respectively. Pre-IRE maximum urinary flow (Qmax) (median: 16.1±8.0 mL/sec) and Qmax after catheter removal (16.2±7.6 mL/sec) did not differ significantly (p=0.904). Thirteen PCa recurrences occurred (54.2%). Out-of-lesion-PCa was found in 12/13 patients (92.3%), while 4/13 patients showed in-lesion-PCa recurrence simultaneously (30.8%). In one patient, there was an in-lesion-PCa recurrence only (7.7%). Six out of 24 patients (25.0%) received a secondary treatment. All patients were satisfied with the IRE procedure.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Focal IRE underperforms regarding the overall oncological outcome and should not be offered as an equivalent therapy to established curative treatment strategies. Nevertheless, under a strict FU regimen, its lack of significant additional morbidity compared to an active surveillance strategy makes IRE a feasible alternative for low-risk PCa in highly selected patients as a personalised approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":54261,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Mens Health","volume":" ","pages":"821-829"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11439813/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Mens Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.230097","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANDROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the morbidity, functional and oncological outcome of irreversible electroporation (IRE) as a focal therapy for prostate cancer (PCa) when used in "active surveillance (AS)" candidates refusing standard treatment options.

Materials and methods: IRE was performed under general anaesthesia, and the transurethral catheter was removed one day after intervention in all patients. Pre- and post-interventional voiding parameters (measured by International Prostate Symptom Score Questionnaire [IPSS], uroflowmetry and post-void residue) were compared. Follow-up (FU) was observed over a minimum of six months, including oncological outcome (controlled by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, rebiopsy, prostate-specific antigen dynamic as well as the need and type of secondary treatment) and general functional outcome (International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire, satisfaction of the procedure).

Results: Twenty-four patients refusing AS or standard treatment with a median FU of 18.7 months were included. IPSS showed nine patients with mild, 12 with moderate and two with severe obstructive voiding symptoms pre-intervention (focal IRE). Median IPSS pre-IRE was 9 points, 8.5 (p=0.341) at six months and 10 (p=0.392) after 12 months, respectively. Pre-IRE maximum urinary flow (Qmax) (median: 16.1±8.0 mL/sec) and Qmax after catheter removal (16.2±7.6 mL/sec) did not differ significantly (p=0.904). Thirteen PCa recurrences occurred (54.2%). Out-of-lesion-PCa was found in 12/13 patients (92.3%), while 4/13 patients showed in-lesion-PCa recurrence simultaneously (30.8%). In one patient, there was an in-lesion-PCa recurrence only (7.7%). Six out of 24 patients (25.0%) received a secondary treatment. All patients were satisfied with the IRE procedure.

Conclusions: Focal IRE underperforms regarding the overall oncological outcome and should not be offered as an equivalent therapy to established curative treatment strategies. Nevertheless, under a strict FU regimen, its lack of significant additional morbidity compared to an active surveillance strategy makes IRE a feasible alternative for low-risk PCa in highly selected patients as a personalised approach.

利用不可逆电穿孔技术对 "低风险前列腺癌主动监测候选者 "实施个性化治疗策略:对可行性、发病率、功能和肿瘤结果的前瞻性评估
目的:评估不可逆电穿孔术(IRE)作为前列腺癌(PCa)病灶疗法用于拒绝接受标准治疗方案的 "主动监测(AS)"患者时的发病率、功能和肿瘤学结果:所有患者均在全身麻醉下接受 IRE 治疗,治疗后一天拔除经尿道导管。比较介入前后的排尿参数(通过国际前列腺症状评分问卷[IPSS]、尿流率测定和排尿后残余物测量)。观察随访(FU)至少六个月,包括肿瘤结果(由多参数磁共振成像、重新活检、前列腺特异性抗原动态以及二次治疗的需要和类型控制)和一般功能结果(勃起功能国际指数问卷、手术满意度):共纳入24名拒绝AS或标准治疗的患者,中位FU为18.7个月。IPSS显示,干预(病灶IRE)前,9名患者有轻度排尿障碍症状,12名患者有中度排尿障碍症状,2名患者有重度排尿障碍症状。干预前的 IPSS 中位数为 9 分,6 个月后为 8.5 分(P=0.341),12 个月后为 10 分(P=0.392)。IRE前的最大尿流(Qmax)(中位数:16.1±8.0 毫升/秒)和拔除导管后的最大尿流(Qmax)(16.2±7.6 毫升/秒)没有显著差异(P=0.904)。13 例 PCa 复发(54.2%)。12/13例患者(92.3%)在病灶外发现了PCa,4/13例患者同时在病灶内发现了PCa复发(30.8%)。一名患者仅出现了病灶内-长癌复发(7.7%)。24 名患者中有 6 人(25.0%)接受了二次治疗。所有患者都对 IRE 过程表示满意:结论:病灶 IRE 在总体肿瘤治疗效果方面表现不佳,不应作为一种等同于既有根治性治疗策略的疗法。不过,在严格的FU治疗方案下,IRE与积极的监测策略相比没有明显的额外发病率,因此IRE作为一种个性化治疗方法,是高选择性患者治疗低风险PCa的可行选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
World Journal of Mens Health
World Journal of Mens Health Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
2.10%
发文量
92
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信