Non-Whole-Gland High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound vs Whole-Gland High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Management of Localized Prostate Cancer: 1-Year Oncological and Functional Outcomes.

Objective: The aim of the study was to compare the oncological and functional outcomes in localized prostate cancer patients who received non-whole-gland high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) with those in patients who received whole-gland HIFU therapy.

Patients And Methods: Eighty-six patients from September 2012 to January 2017 in our center were retrospectively analyzed. Oncological outcomes included histological absence of prostate cancer, biochemical disease-free survival (BDFS) as well as the absence of lesions suspected for harboring prostate cancer in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Regarding functional outcomes, we determined international prostate symptom score (IPSS), pad-free rate, pad-free and leakage-free rates as well as international index of erectile function-5 (IIEF-5).

Results: Of the 86 patients, 25 patients who underwent non-whole-gland HIFU and 61 patients who underwent whole-gland HIFU were enrolled in our 1-year follow-up study. There were no significant differences in histological absence of prostate cancer (p = 0.655), BDFS (p = 0.820), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir (p = 0.453), and absence of suspicious lesions in mpMRI (p = 0.633) between non-whole-gland HIFU group and whole-gland HIFU group. However, compared with the whole-gland HIFU, the non-whole-gland HIFU group had fewer IPSS at 1 month (8.64 ± 3.63 vs 10.85 ± 6.10), a longer time to PSA nadir (5.04 ± 2.07 vs 3.83 ± 1.65), less temporary urine retention rate (20.0% vs 44.3%), less complication rate especially urinary tract strictures (4% vs 26.2%), whereas pad-free rate, pad-free and leakage-free rates, and IIEF scores were comparable.

Conclusion: Non-whole-gland HIFU is a promising type of treatment for localized prostate cancer with satisfactory oncological results with less impairment of functional outcomes and complications compared with whole-gland HIFU, but it requires longer follow-up and larger samples of randomized control trials.