Dataset Information

MRI-guided focal laser ablation of prostate cancer: a prospective single-arm, single-center trial with 3 years of follow-up.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

We aimed to assess post-interventional and 36-month follow-up results of a single-center, single-arm, in-bore phase I trial of focal laser ablation (FLA) guided by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI).

Methods

FLA procedures were done in-bore MRI using a transperineal approach. Primary endpoints were feasibility and safety expressed as lack of grade 3 complications. Secondary endpoints were changes in international prostate symptom score (IPSS), sexual health inventory for men (SHIM), quality of life (QoL) scores, and serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels. Treatment outcomes were assessed by combined mpMRI-ultrasound fusion-guided and extended sextant systematic biopsy after 12, 24, and optionally after 36 months.

Results

Fifteen participants were included. Seven patients (46.67%) had Gleason 3+3 and 8 patients (53.33%) had Gleason 3+4 cancer. All patients tolerated the procedure well, and no grade 3/4 complications occurred. All grade 1 and 2 complications were transient and resolved completely. There was no significant change in mean IPSS from baseline (-1, p = 0.460) and QoL (0, p = 0.441) scores following FLA but there was a significant drop in mean SHIM scores (-2, p = 0.010) compared to pretreatment baselines. Mean PSA significantly decreased after FLA (-2.5, p < 0.001). Seven out of 15 patients (46.67%) had residual cancer in, adjacent, or in close proximity to the treatment area (1 × 4+3=7, 1 × 3+4=7, and 5 × 3+3=6). Four out of 15 patients (26.67%) underwent salvage therapy (2 repeat FLA, 2 radical prostatectomy).

Conclusion

After 3 years of follow-up we conclude focal laser ablation is safe and feasible without significant complications.

SUBMITTER: Mehralivand S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8136525 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare in a multireader manner the diagnostic accuracies of 3-T multiparametric MRI interpretation and serial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurement in predicting the presence of residual clinically significant prostate cancer after focal laser ablation. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Eighteen men had undergone focal laser ablation for low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer as part of two National Cancer Institute-funded phase 1 clinical trials. Multiparametric MRI was performed immediately after and 6 and 12 months after focal laser ablation. Serial PSA measurements after focal laser ablation were recorded, and MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy was performed 6 and 12 months after ablation and served as the reference standard. Multiparametric MRI was performed at 3 T with pelvic phased-array coils. T2-weighted, DW, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images were retrospectively assessed by two blinded radiologists using a 3-point Likert scale (0-2). Inter-reader agreement was assessed with the Cohen kappa statistic. The diagnostic accuracies of multiparametric MRI and PSA measurement were compared. RESULTS. Residual clinically significant prostate cancer was identified in 11 of 18 (61%) men. Logistic regression analysis of serial PSA measurements yielded a correct classification rate of 61.1% (p > 0.05). Using a multiparametric MRI threshold score of 4 or greater, both radiologists made correct classifications for 16 of 18 men (89%) at 6 months and 15 of 17 men (88%) at 12 months. Interreader agreement was substantial to excellent for T2-weighted imaging, DWI, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and improved uniformly from 6 to 12 months. Logistic regression analysis of the retrospectively reviewed multiparametric MR images yielded AUCs greater than 0.90 for each radiologist 6 and 12 months after focal laser ablation (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION. Multiparametric MRI 6 and 12 months after focal laser ablation significantly outperformed serial PSA measurements for predicting the presence of residual clinically significant prostate cancer.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess differences in 24-month oncologic and functional outcomes in men with low to intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation (TULSA) using intentionally conservative versus intensified treatment parameters.Patients and methodsPatients from a single center involved in two multicenter trials were included in this analysis. This included 14 of 30 patients with Gleason 3 + 3 from a Phase I study using intentionally conservative treatment parameters, and 15 of 115 patients with Gleason ≤ 3 + 4 from a pivotal study using intensified parameters. Follow-up data compared across these cohorts included 12-month biopsy and MRI for all patients, and 24-month PSA, micturition and quality of life (IIEF, IPSS, IPSS-QOL). The prognostic value of baseline parameters and PSA kinetics on 12-month histological recurrence was evaluated by logistic regression.Results12-month biopsy revealed clinically significant residual disease in 4 (29%) and 2 (14%) patients from the Phase I and pivotal studies, respectively. PSA nadir was 0.7 ng/ml for Phase I and 0.5 ng/ml for pivotal study patients. Patient age at diagnosis, use of MRI fusion/systematic prostate biopsy, number of obtained cores at initial biopsy, PSA course, and PSA nadir were identified as prognostic factors for treatment success. All but one patient from each cohort maintained erection firmness sufficient for penetration. No cases of pad use were reported at 24 months. There were no Grade 4 or higher adverse events, and no late toxicity related to the procedure.ConclusionTwo-year follow-up demonstrated the efficacy of TULSA for the treatment of localized prostate cancer, and the durability of PSA and functional outcomes. Intensifying treatment parameters in the pivotal trial had no impact on safety or functional outcomes through 24 months, while reducing the recurrence rate for clinically significant disease. Careful patient selection by MRI fusion/systematic prostate biopsy and adequate follow-up through routine 12-month biopsy are recommended.

Project description:ObjectiveCorpus callosotomy (CC) is an important treatment for atonic seizures in patients with generalized or multifocal drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). Traditionally, CC is performed via an open microsurgical approach, but more recently, MR-guided stereotactic laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) corpus callosum ablation (CCA) has been developed to leverage the safety and minimally invasive nature of LITT. Given the recent adoption of CCA at select centers, how CCA compares to CC is unknown. We aim to compare the clinical seizure outcomes of CCA and CC after extended follow-up.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study to compare the effectiveness and safety of CC to CCA from 1994 to 2022. The primary outcome was a 50% reduction in target seizure. Secondary outcome measures were postoperative length of stay, adverse events, and other effectiveness metrics. Comparative statistics were executed using Stata. Normality for continuous variables was assessed, and parametric statistics were utilized as needed. Frequency was compared with chi-squared or Fischer's exact tests, when applicable.ResultsData from 47 operations performed on 36 patients were included in this study, of which 13 (36%) patients underwent 17 CCA. Patients who received CCA had similar rates of meaningful reduction (>50%) of atonic seizures as their CC counterparts (55% vs 70% P = 0.15). Patients undergoing CCA had significantly shorter hospitalizations than those receiving CC (2.5 vs 6.0 days P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in rates of postoperative complications between the groups, although the magnitude of the complication rates was lower in the CCA cohort (12% vs 28%).SignificanceThis early experience suggests CCA has similar outcomes to traditional CC, albeit with a shorter hospital stay. However, future studies are necessary to investigate the noninferiority between these two approaches. Large multicenter studies are necessary to investigate differences in adverse events and whether these findings generalize across other centers.