Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  141 148 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 141 148 Next Page
Page Background

assessment

[1]

. No androgen deprivation therapy was con-

tinued after HIFU treatment. Prostate biopsies after HIFU

were reported for 60% of patients, and the negative biopsy

rate was 74%. The 5-yr biochemical failure

free survival was

49%, ranging from 58% in low-risk disease at diagnosis to 36%

in high-risk disease. Second HIFU treatment was performed in

12% of cases, and 47% of patients received androgen deprivation

therapy on progression. Factors significantly influencing the

success rate were a low Gleason score, pre-HIFU prostate-spe-

cific antigen (PSA) of

<

4 ng/ml, and the absence of a previous

history of androgen deprivation therapy.

Expert's comments:

Salvage HIFU is a recommended treatment or retreatment

option for local recurrence after failure of external-beam

radiotherapy

[2]

. It has been reported that this technique

is associated with less functional harm than salvage radical

prostatectomy

[3]

. These results published for this largest case

series confirm the role of HIFU in the management of locally

recurrent prostate cancer. Globally, oncologic outcomes were

interesting showing a not negligible cure rate (in terms of

biochemical recurrence/negative biopsy rate) with an accept-

able toxicity. Unfortunately, no strong survival endpoint has

been reported and no control arm has been used. The other

interest of this study is the long-termmedian follow-up in the

recurrent cancer setting (7 yr).

What can we learn from this study? First, it is evident

that we need to improve patient selection and shorten the

time to recurrence treatment. The mean pre-HIFU PSA was

6.8 ng/ml in the cohort, which means that treatment was

started too late for the majority of the patients. Radiation

oncologists and urologists should be aware of this need for

early management of recurrence to avoid any delay in

treatment initiation. New imaging modalities such as

magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission

tomography/computed tomography with choline or a

prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand in association

with targeted biopsies can identify intraprostatic recur-

rence, even in the case of low PSA values, and their use

should not be postponed when PSA recurrence (nadir + 2)

occurs.

Second, the study shows that experience and technique

improvements clearly matter. The safety profile was

acceptable, with an incontinence rate of 19%, but only for

the most recent procedures. Thus, after the integration of

specific postradiotherapy parameters in 2002, the rate of

rectourethra fistula dropped from 9% to 0.6% in the

contemporary cohort. Imaging-directed HIFU treatment

(hemiablation, focal treatment) and the use of next-

generation devices could also contribute to improvements

in functional outcomes without negatively influencing

oncologic results

[4,5]

.

Conflicts of interest:

The author has nothing to disclose.

References

[1]

Crouzet S, Blana A, Murat FJ, et al. Salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for locally recurrent prostate cancer after failed radiation therapy: multi-institutional analysis of 418 patients. BJU Int 2017;119:896 904

.

[2]

Cornford P, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, De Santis M, Gross T, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2017;71:630 42

.

[3]

Jones TA, Chin J, McLeod D, Barkin J, Pantuck A, Marks LS. High-intensity focused ultrasound for radio-recurrent prostate can- cer: a North American clinical trial. J Urol 2017, S0022-5347(17) 76734-1

.

[4]

Golan R, Bernstein AN, McClure TD, et al. Partial gland treatment of prostate cancer using high-intensity focused ultrasound in the primary and salvage settings: a systematic review. J Urol 2017, S0022-5347(17)54786-2.

[5]

Kanthabalan A, Peters M, Van Vulpen M, et al. Focal salvage high- intensity focused ultrasound in radiorecurrent prostate cancer. BJU Int 2017;120:246 56.

Guillaume Ploussard

a,b,

*

a

Division of Uro-Oncology, Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse

Onocopole, Toulouse, France

b

Department of Urology, Saint Jean Languedoc Hospital, Toulouse, France

*Department of Urology, Saint Jean Languedoc Hospital, 20 route de

Revel, Toulouse 31400, France.

E-mail address:

g.ploussard@gmail.com

.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.09.031

© 2017 European Association of Urology.

Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Re: Metastasis-free Survival Is a Strong Surrogate

of Overall Survival in Localized Prostate Cancer

Xie W, Regan MM, Buyse M, et al

J Clin Oncol 2017;35:3097

104

Expert's summary:

The Intermediate Clinical Endpoints in Cancer of the Prostate

working group analyzed data from 28 randomized controlled

trials comparing treatments in localized prostate cancer

(PCa). Disease-free survival (DFS) was determined for

21 140 patients from 24 trials and metastasis-free survival

(MFS) for 12 712 patients from 19 trials

[1]

. The surrogacy of

DFS and MFS for overall survival (OS) was evaluated using a

meta-analytical two-stage validation model in which two

conditions must hold to claim DFS and MFS as a surrogate

for OS. After median follow-up of 10 yr, 45% of the study

populations experienced a DFS or MFS event, and 63% and

66% of these patients, respectively, had high-risk disease.

MFS is a strong surrogate for OS (at a patient level, Kendall's

g

for correlation with OS was 0.91; at a trial level,

R

2

was 0.83,

with 95% confidence interval 0.71

0.88) in a patient popula-

tion with clinically localized PCa with an approximate 15%

risk of dying from PCa over 10 yr despite potentially curative

local therapy.

Expert's comments:

Despite great improvements in drug development that have

prolonged the life of men with metastatic castration-resistant

E U R O P E A N U R O L O GY 7 3 ( 2 0 18 ) 13 9

14 4

141