Prostate International最新文献

Background: Focal therapy is considered one of the treatment options for localized prostate cancer (PCa), particularly for low or very-low-risk patients. In this study, we compared the mid-term oncological outcomes in localized PCa patients treated with high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU).

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 237 patients who underwent HIFU for localized PCa. Patients were divided into two groups based on ablation type: whole gland ablation (WGA) and partial gland ablation (PGA). Follow-up biopsies were performed after one year postoperatively, and the oncological outcomes were compared between the groups.

Results: Among the total of 237 patients, 54 subjects were treated by WGA and 183 subjects by PGA. After one year postoperatively, follow-up biopsies were conducted on 199 patients, revealing residual cancer in 21.4% of WGA group and 15.3% of PGA group. Additionally, clinically significant (CS) cancer was observed in 14.3% of WGA group and 8.3% of PGA group. Survival analyses revealed significantly longer failure-free (P < 0.001) and salvage-free survival (P < 0.001) in WGA group than in PGA group. Similarly, in the intermediate-high risk group, WGA group exhibited longer failure-free (P = 0.005) and salvage-free survival (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: HIFU was performed with acceptable oncological outcomes in localized PCa. Despite higher proportion of high-risk patients in WGA group, WGA was associated with significantly better failure-free survival and salvage-free survival. Further prospective and multi-center studies are warranted.

Introduction: Adverse events, such as erectile dysfunction (ED) and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), are significant concerns in prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with Iodine 125 (I-125) low-dose rate (LDR) prostate brachytherapy (PB). Alpha antagonists and phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors are used to manage these events. The present study compared the efficacy of low-dose tadalafil with that of tamsulosin for concomitant ED and LUTS in PCa patients treated with I-125 LDR PB.

Materials and methods: One hundred and seventeen patients who received PB for low- or intermediate-risk localized PCa were analyzed. They were randomized into two groups, one receiving tamsulosin (N = 58) and the other receiving low-dose tadalafil (N = 59) immediately after PB. Sexual and urinary functions were assessed at various time points post-PB using questionnaires and objective measurements. The primary endpoint was sexual function measured by the International Index of Erectile Function-15 (IIEF-15) EF domain scores 6 months after PB. Secondary endpoints were sexual function measured by total IIEF-15 scores and Erection Hardness Scores 6 months after PB. The exploratory endpoint was the LUTS status 6 months after PB.

Results: No significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics between the two groups. Tadalafil exerted stronger effects on sexual function, particularly erection hardness, than tamsulosin. No significant differences were observed in the management of LUTS between both treatments.

Conclusion: Low-dose tadalafil and tamsulosin may manage LUTS equally after PB. Low-dose tadalafil may contribute to the maintenance of erectile function, particularly erection hardness, after PB; therefore, it is a viable option for patients with baseline erectile function.

Background: To compare the efficacy and toxicity of docetaxel treatment regimens in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 162 patients diagnosed with mCRPC who underwent docetaxel chemotherapy between 2009 and 2020. The patients were divided into three groups according to the dosage and interval of docetaxel (DCT) chemotherapy regimen: 30 mL/m² weekly, 50 mL/m² biweekly (every 2 weeks), and 75 mL/m² triweekly (every 3 weeks).

Results: There were no significant differences in the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rates (P = 0.709). The median time to progression was 3.0 [interquartile range (IQR 2.0-5.3)] months, 5.0 (IQR 2.0-13.0) months, and 5.0 (IQR 3.0-12.0) months in the weekly, biweekly, and triweekly groups, respectively (P = 0.062). The median overall survival (OS) was 12.5 (IQR 6.0-14.0) months, 18.8 (IQR 5.5-23.5) months, and 22.9 (IQR 11.0-33.0) months in the weekly, biweekly, and triweekly groups, respectively (P < 0.001). There were no differences in all toxicity and Grade 3 or higher toxicity. In Cox multivariate regression analysis, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS), response to chemotherapy, and chemotherapy cycle also affected the PFS. Age, ECOG-PS, and chemotherapy cycle affected the OS.

Conclusions: The various options for optimal chemotherapy are indicated depending on the patient's conditions during the diagnosis of mCRPC. Treatment with DCT at 2-week or even 1-week intervals appears to be well tolerated in men diagnosed with mCRPC and represents a useful option when the conventional triweekly regimen is not tolerated due to poor patient condition.

Background: We investigated whether combining T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings and clinical risk categories improves upon established prognostic indicators of oncological outcomes in prostate cancer.

Methods: Patients who underwent radical prostatectomy, but not preoperative hormone therapy, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy, for localized prostate cancer at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital from October 2007 to April 2016 were included. MRIs were classified according to the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). Patients were divided into the following five groups: 1, no focal suspicious lesion; 2, organ-confined suspicious lesion PI-RADS ≤3; 3, organ-confined suspicious lesion PI-RADS 4 or 5; 4, suspicious lesion with extraprostatic extension (EPE), no seminal vesicle invasion (SVI); 5, suspicious lesion with EPE and SVI. Risk classified according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and MRI findings were combined to analyze survival curves for biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free and metastasis-free survival. The area under a time-dependent receiver operating characteristic was analyzed for event prediction after 5 years.

Results: We analyzed 1,290 patients. In multivariate Cox regression models, PI-RADS ≥4 (hazard ratio [HR] 2.33, P < 0.001), EPE (HR 1.46, P = 0.027), SVI (HR 5.03, P < 0.001) and NCCN high-risk (HR 2.33, 95% CI 1.66-3.26, P < 0.001) were associated with BCR. For metastasis, EPE (HR 2.33, P = 0.047), SVI (HR 13.08, P < 0.001) and NCCN high-risk (HR 2.78, P = 0.026) were independent risk factors. Depending on MRI group, BCR-free survival significantly decreased in NCCN intermediate-risk (P = 0.001) and high-risk (P < 0.001) groups, and metastasis-free survival decreased in the intermediate-risk group (P = 0.39) and significantly decreased in the high-risk (P < 0.001) group. Adding MRI group to NCCN risk classification significantly improved the predictive accuracy for BCR in comparison with NCCN risk classification alone (P = 0.042), but not for metastasis (P = 0.012).

Conclusion: Combining prostate MRI with NCCN risk classification improves the prediction value of BCR following radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer.