DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A structured framework for optimizing high-intensity focused ultrasound ablative treatment in localized prostate cancer

  • Castellani, Daniele (Department of Urology, IRCCS INRCA) ;
  • Branchi, Alessandro (Department of Urology, IRCCS INRCA) ;
  • Claudini, Redi (Department of Urology, IRCCS INRCA) ;
  • Gasparri, Luca (Department of Urology, IRCCS INRCA) ;
  • Pierangeli, Tiziana (Prostate Cancer Prevention Unit, IRCCS INRCA) ;
  • Ravasi, Elena (Department of Radiology, IRCCS INRCA) ;
  • Dellabella, Marco (Department of Urology, IRCCS INRCA)
  • Received : 2018.08.09
  • Accepted : 2019.04.09
  • Published : 2019.07.22

Abstract

High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) treatment has recently been pursued to reduce radical treatment-related morbidity in low-to-intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer (PCa), especially in older men. The aim of this study was to develop a dedicated framework for HIFU therapy. All clinical data, such as risk categories, magnetic resonance with functional parametric imaging, and histopathology, are essential for driving proper HIFU treatment. All needed data can be added to the framework to localize areas that need to be treated. Once PCa areas have been featured, quantified, and located, planning can be adapted to drive accurate HIFU treatment. Our planning framework may be useful for all ablative therapies in order to standardize treatment for both clinical and scientific purposes.

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:7-30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21387
  2. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, et al. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1415-24. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606220
  3. Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Walsh E, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1425-37. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606221
  4. Valerio M, Cerantola Y, Eggener SE, Lepor H, Polascik TJ, Villers A, et al. New and established technology in focal ablation of the prostate: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2017;71:17-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.044
  5. Guillaumier S, Peters M, Arya M, Afzal N, Charman S, Dudderidge T, et al. A multicentre study of 5-year outcomes following focal therapy in treating clinically significant nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2018;74:422-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.006
  6. Borycki EM, Kushniruk AW, Bellwood P, Brender J. Technology-induced errors. The current use of frameworks and models from the biomedical and life sciences literatures. Methods Inf Med 2012;51:95-103. https://doi.org/10.3414/ME11-02-0009
  7. Woodrum DA, Kawashima A, Gorny KR, Mynderse LA. Prostate cancer: state of the art imaging and focal treatment. Clin Radiol 2017;72:665-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2017.02.010
  8. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2017;71:618-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003
  9. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, Barentsz JO, Carey B, Futterer JJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2011;59:477-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.12.009
  10. Sivaraman A, Barret E. Focal therapy for prostate cancer: an "A la Carte" approach. Eur Urol 2016;69:973-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.015
  11. Schnipper LE, Davidson NE, Wollins DS, Tyne C, Blayney DW, Blum D, et al; American Society of Clinical Oncology. American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement: a conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:2563-77. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.61.6706
  12. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) with NCCN Evidence Blocks [Internet]. [cited 2019 Mar 30]. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/evidenceblocks/default.aspx.
  13. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Drug Pricing Lab. The Drug Abacus tool [Internet]. [cited 2019 Mar 30]. Available from: https://drugpricinglab.org/tools/drug-abacus/.
  14. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Overview of the ICER value assessment framework and update for 2017-2019 [Internet]. [cited 2019 Mar 30]. Available from: https://icerreview. org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ICER-value-assessment-framework-Updated-050818.pdf.
  15. Cherny NI, Sullivan R, Dafni U, Kerst JM, Sobrero A, Zielinski C, et al. A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Ann Oncol 2015;26:1547-73. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv249
  16. Slomiany M, Madhavan P, Kuehn M, Richardson S. Value frameworks in oncology: comparative analysis and implications to the pharmaceutical industry. Am Health Drug Benefits 2017;10:253-60.
  17. Chandra A, Shafrin J, Dhawan R. Utility of cancer value frameworks for patients, payers, and physicians. JAMA 2016;315:2069-70. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.4915