Follow-up after focal therapy of the prostate with high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) using contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in combination with MRI image fusion

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

Focal therapy (FT) of the prostate for low risk prostate cancer (PCa) is an alternative to traditional definite treatment options like external beam radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy. However, follow up after FT is still challenging and is subject to current studies. Significance of imaging after FT such as multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) is currently not well established. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of alternative imaging during the follow up of low risk PCa treated with focal HIFU therapy using CEUS and image fusion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Retrospective single arm study in patients with uni- or bilateral, low or intermediate risk prostate cancer treated with HIFU at our institution between October 2016 and January 2018. CEUS in combination with image fusion using an axial T2-weighted MRI sequence was performed during follow up 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after the therapy.

RESULTS:

4 consecutive patients with Gleason score (GS) 6 and 4 patients with GS 7a prostate cancer were included in the study. Hemiablation was performed in 7 patients with unilateral tumor. One patient underwent whole gland treatment due to histological proven bilateral PCa. Mean patient age at time of therapy was 70.3 (54–83) years and mean Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level prior treatment was 7.8 ng/ml (2.1–14.4), after 3 months mean PSA level was 3.9 ng/ml (0.1–7.2), after 6 months 3.5 ng/ml (0.2–6.0), after 9 months 3.1 ng/ml (0.2–6.8) and 3.3 ng/ml (0.2–6.1) after 12 months. CEUS showed no signs of microvascularisation after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months in the ablated zone. 3 months posttreatment the necrotic tissue was still visible in the B-mode scan, although with no signs of vascularization performing CEUS. After 6 months the ablated side of the prostate was almost completely atrophic. And after 9 months the necrotic tissue was completely resolved. Between 9 and 12 months no changes in microvascularisation and perfusion could be shown.

CONCLUSIONS:

MpMRI/CEUS image fusion is a cost-effective and feasible technique to monitor the perfusion of the ablation zone after focal therapy of the prostate.

Keywords

Prostate cancer high intensity focused ultrasound therapy contrast enhanced ultrasound image fusion follow up

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cooperberg

, et al.Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: Risk assessment and treatment. J Urol. 2007;178(3 Pt 2):S14–9.

Cooperberg

, et al.High-risk prostate cancer in the United States, 1990-2007. World J Urol. 2008;26(3):211–8.

Parker

, Montgomery

, Wood

DP.

Jr , Quality of life outcomes following treatment for localized prostate cancer: Is there a clear winner?Current Opinion in Urology. 2009;19(3):303–8.

D’Amico

, et al.Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Jama. 1998;280(11):969–74.

Mottet

, et al.EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. European Urology. 2017;71(4):618–29.

Klotz

. Active surveillance, quality of life, and cancer-related anxiety. European Urology. 2013;64(1):37–9.

Apfelbeck

, et al.Contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) with MRI image fusion for monitoring focal therapy of prostate cancer with high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU)1. Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation. 2018;69(1-2):93–100.

Ganzer

, et al.Prospective multicenter Phase II-Study on focal therapy (hemiablation) of the prostate with High Intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). J Urol. 2017.

Roach

, 3rd , et al.Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: Recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65(4):965–74.

10.

Horwitz

, et al.Definitions of biochemical failure that best predict clinical failure in patients with prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation alone: A multi-institutional pooled analysis. J Urol. 2005;173(3):797–802.

11.

van den Bos

, et al.Focal therapy in prostate cancer: International multidisciplinary consensus on trial design. Eur Urol. 2014;65(6):1078–83.

12.

Muller

, et al.Follow-up modalities in focal therapy for prostate cancer: Results from a Delphi consensus project. World Journal of Urology. 2015;33(10):1503–9.

13.

Blazevski

, et al.Oncological and Quality-of-life Outcomes Following Focal Irreversible Electroporation as Primary Treatment for Localised Prostate Cancer: A Biopsy-monitored Prospective Cohort. Eur Urol Oncol, 2019.

14.

Dickinson

, et al.Prostate-specific antigen vs. magnetic resonance imaging parameters for assessing oncological outcomes after high intensity-focused ultrasound focal therapy for localized prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2017;35(1):30.e9-30.e15.

15.

Chao

, Llukani

, Lepor

. Two-year Outcomes Following Focal Laser Ablation of Localized Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018;1(2):129–33.

16.

Kirkham

, et al.MR imaging of prostate after treatment with high-intensity focused ultrasound. Radiology. 2008;246(3):833–44.

17.

Rouviere

, et al.MRI appearance of prostate following transrectal HIFU ablation of localized cancer. Eur Urol. 2001;40(3):265–74.

18.

Rouvière

, et al.Prostate cancer transrectal HIFU ablation: Detection of local recurrences using T2-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. European Radiology. 2010;20(1):48–55.