MP30-10: HIFU dose escalation leads to fewer recurrences in following focal HIFU in prostate cancer

HIFU dose escalation leads to fewer recurrences in following focal HIFU in prostate cancer

View Poster


To determine if delivering greater amounts of focused Ultrasound heat energy when treating non-metastatic prostate cancer using focal HIFU leads to lower recurrence rates.


Based on the prospectively maintained HIFU (Sonablate 500) registry cases were identified who underwent a focal HIFU (03/2007 to 12/2016) with standard HIFU delivery or dose-escalated HIFU. In-field treamtent failure was defined by any secondary treatment (ADT/chemotherapy, cryotherapy, EBRT, RRP, or re-HIFU), metastasis from prostate cancer without further treatment, tumour recurrence with Gleason score ≥7 on prostate biopsy, or death from prostate cancer, respectively. 131 cases were treated with two, and 59 cases with three ablative zones respectively and could be used for a matched-pair analysis. Two major criteria were used for mandatory exact matching (baseline Gleason score and mpMRI-defined tumour volume). Other criteria (biopsy maximum cancer core length (MCCL), duration of clinical follow-up, and time to proof of recurrence) were also used and nearest matching accepted. 37 matched pairs were identified. Statistics by R-language.


In the standard HIFU and dose-escalated groups, respectively, PSA (IQR) was 7.18ng/ml (4.6-10.3) and 6.7ng/ml (5.37-8.5), mean prostate volume (range) was 46ml (17-103) and 52ml (19-121), mean tumour volume (range) in both groups were identical at 0.6ml (0.05-2.5). For the two groups, respectively, median biopsy results (IQR) for number of positive cores, MCCL (in cm), and maximal percentage of core were 6 (3-8) vs. 4 (3-5), 6 (4-9) vs. 5 (4-8), and 65 (40-80) vs. 50 (30-67). Gleason score (% of cases) was 3+3=6 in 2/37 (5%), 3+4 in 31/37 (84%), and 4+3 in 4/37 (11%). Median time elapsed until in-field failure was proven (IQR) was 13 month (11.5-24) compared to 11.5 month (9.5-13). Overall, in-field recurrence (%) was found in 11/37 (29.7%) in standard HIFU and 6/37 (16.2%) in dose-escalated HIFU (p=0.002).


Significantly higher rate of in-field treatment failure in focal HIFU using the standard HIFU protocol on the Sonablate 500 compared to a dose-escalation by delivering more energy.

Funding: NONE