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