Dergiler / Turkish Journal of Urology / 2021 / Cilt: 47 - Sayı: 4

Evaluation of clinical and mpMRI findings of irreversible electroporation therapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: Preliminary results

Sayfa
299–304
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

As an ambulatory procedure with a low incidence of side effects, we look forward to seeing the long-term results of IRE treatment.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: To evaluate early clinical and multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) results of irreversible electroporation (IRE) efficiency in treatment of localized prostate cancer.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Six of them have completed their 6-month follow-up period.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:As an ambulatory procedure with a low incidence of side effects, we look forward to seeing the long-term results of IRE treatment.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Objective: To evaluate early clinical and multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) results of irreversible electroporation (IRE) efficiency in treatment of localized prostate cancer. Material and methods: For the patients in whom IRE was performed for local ablation, mpMRI was used for the sixth month follow-up. These images were compared with the mpMRI images obtained before the pro- cedure. We performed transperineal fusion biopsy to patients with diagnosis of localized prostate cancer. We treated the eligible ones with IRE. Six of them have completed their 6-month follow-up period. We compared preoperative prostate specific antigen (PSA), international prostate symptom score, international index of erectile function (IIEF), and mpMRI of these patients with those obtained at the sixth month of follow-up. Side effects experienced by the patients were evaluated as well. Results: We had 10 patients who received IRE treatment. Six patients completed their sixth month-follow-up and came for control visits. At the end of 6 months, the mean decrease in PSA level was 73%. IIEF results were seen not to have changed significantly. On mpMRI, diffusion restriction was seen to have disappeared except for one patient, and Prostate Imaging Reporting Data System scores were decreased. Conclusion: We concluded that early clinical and mpMRI results for IRE in the focal ablative treatment of localized prostate cancer were gratifying. As an ambulatory procedure with a low incidence of side effects, we look forward to seeing the long-term results of IRE treatment.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

KIZIL, P. G., ALTAN, Ş. A., TARHAN, N. Ç., ADSAN, Ö. (2021). Evaluation of clinical and mpMRI findings of irreversible electroporation therapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: Preliminary results. Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 47 - Sayı: 4, 299–304. https://ajindex.com/articles/404233

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (13)

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017
  2. 67(1):7-30. [CrossRef] 2. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. 10-Year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016
  3. [CrossRef] 3. Valerio M, Cerantola Y, Eggener SE, et al. New and established technology in focal ablation of the prostate: A systematic review. Eur Urol. 2017
  4. 71(1):17-234. [CrossRef] 4. Onik G, Mikus P, Rubinsky B. Irreversible electroporation: Impli- cations for prostate ablation. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2007
  5. [CrossRef] 5. van den Bos W, Scheltema MJ, Siriwardana AR, et al. Focal irre- versible electroporation as primary treatment for localised pros- tate cancer. BJU Int. 2018
  6. 121(5):716-724. [CrossRef] 6. van den Bos W, Jurhill RR, de Bruin DM, et al. Histopathological outcomes after irreversible electroporation for prostate cancer: Results of an ablate and resect study. J Urol. 2016
  7. 196(2):552- 559. [CrossRef] 7. Valerio M, Dickinson L, Ali A, et al. Nanoknife electroporation ablation trial: A prospective development study investigating focal irreversible electroporation for localised prostate cancer. J Urol. 2017
  8. 197(3):647-654. [CrossRef] 8. Blazevski A, Scheltema MJ, Yuen B, et al. Oncological and qual- ity-of-life outcomes following focal irreversible electroporation as primary treatment for localised prostate cancer: A biopsy- monitored prospective cohort. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020
  9. 3(3):283- 290. [CrossRef] 9. Scheltema MJ, Chang JI, Bo ̈hm M, et al. Pair-matched patient- reported quality of life and early oncological control following focal irreversible electroporation versus robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2018
  10. 36(9):1383-1389. [Cross- Ref] 10. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): A paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017
  11. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018
  12. 378(19):1767-1777. [CrossRef] 12. Murray KM, Ehdaie B, Musser J, et al. Pilot study to assess safety and clinical outcomes of irreversible electroporation for partial gland ablation in men with prostate cancer. J Urol. 2016
  13. 196(3):883-890. [CrossRef] 13. Scheltema MJ, Chang JI, van den Bos W, et al. Preliminary diag- nostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to de