Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Clinical Research

Initial assessment of safety and clinical feasibility of irreversible electroporation in the focal treatment of prostate cancer

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 17, pages 343–347 (2014)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background:

To evaluate the safety and clinical feasibility of focal irreversible electroporation (IRE) of the prostate.

Methods:

We assessed the toxicity profile and functional outcomes of consecutive patients undergoing focal IRE for localised prostate cancer in two centres. Eligibility was assessed by multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and targeted and/or template biopsy. IRE was delivered under transrectal ultrasound guidance with two to six electrodes positioned transperineally within the cancer lesion. Complications were recorded and scored accordingly to the NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events; the functional outcome was physician reported in all patients with at least 6 months follow-up. A contrast-enhanced MRI 1 week after the procedure was carried out to assess treatment effect with a further mpMRI at 6 months to rule out evidence of residual visible cancer.

Results:

Overall, 34 patients with a mean age of 65 years (s.d.=±6) and a median PSA of 6.1 ng ml−1 (interquartile range (IQR)= 4.3–7.7) were included. Nine (26%), 24 (71%) and 1 (3%) men had low, intermediate and high risk disease, respectively (D’Amico criteria). After a median follow-up of 6 months (range 1–24), 12 grade 1 and 10 grade 2 complications occurred. No patient had grade >/= 3 complication. From a functional point of view, 100% (24/24) patients were continent and potency was preserved in 95% (19/20) men potent before treatment. The volume of ablation was a median 12 ml (IQR=5.6–14.5 ml) with the median PSA after 6 months of 3.4 ng ml−1 (IQR=1.9–4.8 ng ml−1). MpMRI showed suspicious residual disease in six patients, of whom four (17%) underwent another form of local treatment.

Conclusions:

Focal IRE has a low toxicity profile with encouraging genito-urinary functional outcomes. Further prospective development studies are needed to confirm the functional outcomes and to explore the oncological potential.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, Barry MJ, Aronson WJ, Fox S et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 203–213.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahmed HU, Freeman A, Kirkham A, Sahu M, Scott R, Allen C et al. Focal therapy for localized prostate cancer: a phase I/II trial. J Urol 2011; 185: 1246–1254.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ahmed HU, Hindley RG, Dickinson L, Freeman A, Kirkham AP, Sahu M et al. Focal therapy for localised unifocal and multifocal prostate cancer: a prospective development study. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13: 622–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Emberton M . A European randomised phase 3 study to assess the efficacy and safety of TOOKAD® soluble for localised prostate cancer compared to active surveillance. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01310894, 31 October 2012.

  5. Bahn D, de Castro Abreu AL, Gill IS, Hung AJ, Silverman P, Gross ME et al. Focal cryotherapy for clinically unilateral, low-intermediate risk prostate cancer in 73 men with a median follow-up of 3.7 years. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Oto A, Sethi I, Karczmar G, McNichols R, Ivancevic MK, Stadler WM et al. MR imaging-guided focal laser ablation for prostate cancer: phase I trial. Radiology 2013; 267: 932–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Barret E, Ahallal Y, Sanchez-Salas R, Galiano M, Cosset JM, Validire P et al. Morbidity of focal therapy in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2013; 63: 618–622.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lindner U, Weersink RA, Haider MA, Gertner MR, Davidson SR, Atri M et al. Image guided photothermal focal therapy for localized prostate cancer: phase I trial. J Urol 2009; 182: 1371–1377.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Valerio M, Ahmed HU, Emberton M, Lawrentschuk N, Lazzeri M, Montironi R et al. The role of focal therapy in the management of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2013; S0302-2838: 00557–5.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Pech M, Janitzky A, Wendler JJ, Strang C, Blaschke S, Dudeck O et al. Irreversible electroporation of renal cell carcinoma: a first-in-man phase I clinical study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2011; 34: 132–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Martin RC 2nd, McFarland K, Ellis S, Velanovich V . Irreversible electroporation therapy in the management of locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J A Coll Surg 2012; 215: 361–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Charpentier KP . Irreversible electroporation for the ablation of liver tumors: are we there yet? Arch Surg 2012; 147: 1053–1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Philips P, Hays D, Martin RC . Irreversible electroporation ablation (IRE) of unresectable soft tissue tumors: learning curve evaluation in the first 150 patients treated. PloS One 2013; 8: e76260.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Onik G, Rubinsky B . Irreversible Electroporation: First Patient Experience Focal Therapy of Prostate Cancer. Series in Biomedical Engineering. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2010, pp 235–247.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Neal RE 2nd, Millar JL, Kavnoudias H, Royce P, Rosenfeldt F, Pham A et al. In vivo characterization and numerical simulation of prostate properties for non-thermal irreversible electroporation ablation. Prostate 2014; 74: 458–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rubinsky J, Onik G, Mikus P, Rubinsky B . Optimal parameters for the destruction of prostate cancer using irreversible electroporation. J Urol 2008; 180: 2668–2674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Faroja M, Ahmed M, Appelbaum L, Ben-David E, Moussa M, Sosna J et al. Irreversible electroporation ablation: is all the damage nonthermal? Radiology 2013; 266: 462–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Emberton M . A prospective development study evaluating focal therapy using irreversible electroporation (Nanoknife®) in men with localised prostate cancer. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01726894, 31 October 2012.

  19. Punwani S, Emberton M, Walkden M, Sohaib A, Freeman A, Ahmed H et al. Prostatic cancer surveillance following whole-gland high-intensity focused ultrasound: comparison of MRI and prostate-specific antigen for detection of residual or recurrent disease. Bri J Radiol 2012; 85: 720–728.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Gupta RT, Kauffman CR, Polascik TJ, Taneja SS, Rosenkrantz AB . The state of prostate MRI in 2013. Oncology (Williston Park) 2013; 27: 262–270.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Turkbey B, Choyke PL . Multiparametric MRI and prostate cancer diagnosis and risk stratification. Curr Opin Urol 2012; 22: 310–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Arumainayagam N, Ahmed HU, Moore CM, Freeman A, Allen C, Sohaib SA et al. Multiparametric MR imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a validation cohort study with transperineal template prostate mapping as the reference standard. Radiology 2013; 268: 761–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Thompson JE, Moses D, Shnier R, Brenner P, Delprado W, Ponsky L et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging guided diagnostic biopsy detects significant prostate cancer and could reduce unnecessary biopsies and over detection: a prospective study. J Urol (e-pub ahead of print 8 February 2014; doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.01.014.

  24. Onik G, Mikus P, Rubinsky B . Irreversible electroporation: implications for prostate ablation. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2007; 6: 295–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Li W, Fan Q, Ji Z, Qiu X, Li Z . The effects of irreversible electroporation (IRE) on nerves. PloS One 2011; 6: e18831.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Tsivian M, Polascik TJ . Bilateral focal ablation of prostate tissue using low-energy direct current (LEDC): a preclinical canine study. BJU Int 2013; 112: 526–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. McCulloch P, Cook JA, Altman DG, Heneghan C, Diener MK . IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 1: the idea and development stages. BMJ 2013; 346: f3012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ergina PL, Barkun JS, McCulloch P, Cook JA, Altman DG . IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 2: observational studies in the exploration and assessment stages. BMJ 2013; 346: f3011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cook JA, McCulloch P, Blazeby JM, Beard DJ, Marinac-Dabic D, Sedrakyan A . IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 3: randomised controlled trials in the assessment stage and evaluations in the long term study stage. BMJ 2013; 346: f2820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The SICPA foundation supports the ongoing fellowship and PhD programme of M. Valerio. M. Emberton and H.U. Ahmed acknowledge funding from the Medical Research Council (UK), the Pelican Cancer Foundation charity, Prostate Cancer UK, St Peters Trust charity, Prostate Cancer Research Centre, the Wellcome Trust, National Institute of Health Research-Health Technology Assessment programme, and the US National Institute of Health-National Cancer Institute. M. Emberton receives funding in part from the UK National Institute of Health Research UCLH/UCL Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK

    M Valerio, H U Ahmed, L Dickinson & M Emberton

  2. Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

    M Valerio, H U Ahmed, L Dickinson & M Emberton

  3. Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland

    M Valerio

  4. Department of Urology, St. Vincent’s Prostate Cancer Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    P D Stricker & L Ponsky

  5. Urology Institute, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA

    L Ponsky

  6. Department of Radiology, St. Vincent’s Prostate Cancer Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    R Shnier

  7. Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

    C Allen

Authors
  1. M Valerio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P D Stricker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H U Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L Dickinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. L Ponsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R Shnier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. C Allen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. M Emberton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M Valerio.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

M. Valerio has received funding for conference attendance from Geoscan Medical. M. Emberton and H.U. Ahmed receive funding from USHIFU, GSK, AngioDynamics and Advanced Medical Diagnostics for clinical trials. M. Emberton is a paid consultant to AngioDynamics, Steba Biotech and SonaCare Medical (previously called USHIFU). Both have previously received consultancy payments from Oncura/GE Healthcare and Steba Biotech. L. Dickinson has received trial funding support from SonaCare Medical and consultancy fees from SonaCare Medical and Oncura. None of these sources had any input whatsoever into this article. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Valerio, M., Stricker, P., Ahmed, H. et al. Initial assessment of safety and clinical feasibility of irreversible electroporation in the focal treatment of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 17, 343–347 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2014.33

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2014.33

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links