TY - JOUR PB - ELSEVIER A1 - Reddy, D A1 - Peters, M A1 - Shah, TT A1 - van Son, M A1 - Tanaka, MB A1 - Huber, PM A1 - Lomas, D A1 - Rakauskas, A A1 - Miah, S A1 - Eldred-Evans, D A1 - Guillaumier, S A1 - Hosking-Jervis, F A1 - Engle, R A1 - Dudderidge, T A1 - Hindley, RG A1 - Emara, A A1 - Nigam, R A1 - McCartan, N A1 - Valerio, M A1 - Afzal, N A1 - Lewi, H A1 - Orczyk, C A1 - Ogden, C A1 - Shergill, I A1 - Persad, R A1 - Virdi, J A1 - Moore, CM A1 - Arya, M A1 - Winkler, M A1 - Emberton, M A1 - Ahmed, HU Y1 - 2022/02/03/ IS - 4 KW - Science & Technology KW - Life Sciences & Biomedicine KW - Urology & Nephrology KW - Focal therapy KW - High-intensity focussed ultrasound KW - Oncological outcomes KW - Prostate cancer KW - RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY KW - FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES KW - PATIENT SELECTION KW - ABLATION TI - Cancer Control Outcomes Following Focal Therapy Using High-intensity Focused Ultrasound in 1379 Men with Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: A Multi-institute 15-year Experience SP - 407 UR - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2022.01.005 VL - 81 N2 - Background: Focal therapy aims to treat areas of cancer to confer oncological control whilst reducing treatment-related functional detriment. Objective: To report oncological outcomes and adverse events following focal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for treating nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Design, setting, and participants: An analysis of 1379 patients with ?6 mo of follow-up prospectively recorded in the HIFU Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment (HEAT) registry from 13 UK centres (2005?2020) was conducted. Five or more years of follow-up was available for 325 (24%) patients. Focal HIFU therapy used a transrectal ultrasound-guided device (Sonablate; Sonacare Inc., Charlotte, NC, USA). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Failure-free survival (FFS) was primarily defined as avoidance of no evidence of disease to require salvage whole-gland or systemic treatment, or metastases or prostate cancer?specific mortality. Differences in FFS between D'Amico risk groups were determined using a log-rank analysis. Adverse events were reported using Clavien-Dindo classification. Results and limitations: The median (interquartile range) age was 66 (60?71) yr and prostate-specific antigen was 6.9 (4.9?9.4) ng/ml with D'Amico intermediate risk in 65% (896/1379) and high risk in 28% (386/1379). The overall median follow-up was 32 (17?58) mo; for those with ?5 yr of follow-up, it was 82 (72?94). A total of 252 patients had repeat focal treatment due to residual or recurrent cancer; overall 92 patients required salvage whole-gland treatment. Kaplan-Meier 7-yr FFS was 69% (64?74%). Seven-year FFS in intermediate- and high-risk cancers was 68% (95% confidence interval [CI] 62?75%) and 65% (95% CI 56?74%; p = 0.3). Clavien-Dindo >2 adverse events occurred in 0.5% (7/1379). The median 10-yr follow-up is lacking. Conclusions: Focal HIFU in carefully selected patients with clinically significant prostate cancer, with six and three of ten patients having, respectively, intermediate- and high-risk cancer, has good cancer control in the medium term. Patient summary: Focal high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment to areas of prostate with cancer can provide an alternative to treating the whole prostate. This treatment modality has good medium-term cancer control over 7 yr, although 10-yr data are not yet available. AV - public EP - 413 JF - European Urology N1 - This version is the author accepted manuscript. For information on re-use, please refer to the publisher?s terms and conditions. ID - discovery10158997 ER -