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

Patient selection for prostate focal therapy in the era of active surveillance: an International Delphi Consensus Project

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 20, pages 294–299 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background:

Whole-gland extirpation or irradiation is considered the gold standard for curative oncological treatment for localized prostate cancer, but is often associated with sexual and urinary impairment that adversely affects quality of life. This has led to increased interest in developing therapies with effective cancer control but less morbidity. We aimed to provide details of physician consensus on patient selection for prostate focal therapy (FT) in the era of contemporary prostate cancer management.

Methods:

We undertook a four-stage Delphi consensus project among a panel of 47 international experts in prostate FT. Data on three main domains (role of biopsy/imaging, disease and patient factors) were collected in three iterative rounds of online questionnaires and feedback. Consensus was defined as agreement in ⩾80% of physicians. Finally, an in-person meeting was attended by a core group of 16 experts to review the data and formulate the consensus statement.

Results:

Consensus was obtained in 16 of 18 subdomains. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is a standard imaging tool for patient selection for FT. In the presence of an mpMRI-suspicious lesion, histological confirmation is necessary prior to FT. In addition, systematic biopsy remains necessary to assess mpMRI-negative areas. However, adequate criteria for systematic biopsy remains indeterminate. FT can be recommended in D’Amico low-/intermediate-risk cancer including Gleason 4+3. Gleason 3+4 cancer, where localized, discrete and of favorable size represents the ideal case for FT. Tumor foci <1.5 ml on mpMRI or <20% of the prostate are suitable for FT, or up to 3 ml or 25% if localized to one hemi-gland. Gleason 3+3 at one core 1mm is acceptable in the untreated area. Preservation of sexual function is an important goal, but lack of erectile function should not exclude a patient from FT.

Conclusions:

This consensus provides a contemporary insight into expert opinion of patient selection for FT of clinically localized prostate cancer.

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. Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, Cookson MS et al. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol 2007; 177: 2106–2131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 61–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Resnick MJ, Koyama T, Fan KH, Albertsen PC, Goodman M, Hamilton AS et al. Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2013; 368: 436–445.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J . 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2005; 293: 2095–2101.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Johansson JE, Andren O, Andersson SO, Dickman PW, Holmberg L, Magnuson A et al. Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2004; 291: 2713–2719.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, Landis P, Wolf S, Trock BJ et al. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 3379–3385.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, Jethava V, Zhang L, Jain S et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 272–277.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yamamoto T, Musunuru B, Vesprini D, Zhang L, Ghanem G, Loblaw A et al. Metastatic prostate cancer in men initially treated with active surveillance. J Urol 2016; 195: 1409–1414.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Klotz L . Active surveillance: patient selection. Curr Opin Urol 2013; 23: 239–244.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Onik G, Barzell W . Transperineal 3D mapping biopsy of the prostate: an essential tool in selecting patients for focal prostate cancer therapy. Urol Oncol 2008; 26: 506–510.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tsivian M, Abern MR, Qi P, Polascik TJ . Short-term functional outcomes and complications associated with transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy. Urology 2013; 82: 166–170.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rosenkrantz AB, Mendrinos S, Babb JS, Taneja SS . Prostate cancer foci detected on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging are histologically distinct from those not detected. J Urol 2012; 187: 2032–2038.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 2015; 313: 390–397.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Gupta RT, Brown AF, Silverman RK, Tay KJ, Madden JF, George DJ et al. Can radiologic staging with multiparametric MRI enhance the accuracy of the partin tables in predicting organ-confined prostate cancer? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016; 207: 87–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Klotz L, Polascik TJ . Low-risk and very-low-risk prostate cancer: is there a role for focal therapy in the era of active surveillance? Yes, the two approaches complement each other. Oncology (Williston Park) 2014; 28: 950–c3.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 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 2014; 66: 732–751.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Tsivian M, Kimura M, Sun L, Mouraviev V, Mayes JM, Polascik TJ . Predicting unilateral prostate cancer on routine diagnostic biopsy: sextant vs extended. BJU Int 2010; 105: 1089–1092.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Linstone HA, Turoff M The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers (December 1975): Reading, Mass, 2002..

  20. Kayat Bittencourt L, Litjens G, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Turkbey B, Gasparetto EL, Barentsz JO . Prostate Cancer: the European Society of Urogenital Radiology Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Criteria for Predicting Extraprostatic Extension by Using 3-T Multiparametric MR Imaging. Radiology 2015; 276: 479–489.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. de la Rosette J, Ahmed H, Barentsz J, Johansen TB, Brausi M, Emberton M et al. Focal therapy in prostate cancer-report from a consensus panel. J Endourol 2010; 24: 775–780.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ahmed HU, Akin O, Coleman JA, Crane S, Emberton M, Goldenberg L et al. Transatlantic Consensus Group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012; 109: 1636–1647.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Donaldson IA, Alonzi R, Barratt D, Barret E, Berge V, Bott S et al. Focal therapy: patients, interventions, and outcomes—a report from a consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 771–777.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Fu Q, Moul JW, Banez LL, Sun L, Mouraviev V, Xie D et al. Preoperative predictors of pathologic stage T2a in low-risk prostate cancer: implications for focal therapy. Urol Int 2012; 89: 296–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gallina A, Maccagnano C, Suardi N, Capitanio U, Abdollah F, Raber M et al. Unilateral positive biopsies in low risk prostate cancer patients diagnosed with extended transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy schemes do not predict unilateral prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2012; 110 (2 Pt 2): E64–E68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Fumado L, Cecchini L, Juanpere N, Ubre A, Lorente JA, Alcaraz A et al. Prostate biopsy is an unreliable tool to select patients eligible for focal therapy. Urol Int 2015; 95: 197–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Matsuoka Y, Numao N, Saito K, Tanaka H, Kumagai J, Yoshida S et al. Candidate selection for quadrant-based focal ablation through a combination of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and prostate biopsy. BJU Int 2016; 117: 94–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tran M, Thompson J, Bohm M, Pulbrook M, Moses D, Shnier R et al. Combination of multiparametric MRI and transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy of the prostate to identify candidates for hemi-ablative focal therapy. BJU Int 2016; 117: 48–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Donaldson IA, Alonzi R, Barratt D, Barret E, Berge V, Bott S et al. Focal therapy: patients, interventions, and outcomes-a report from a consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 717–777.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Postema AW, De Reijke TM, Ukimura O, Van den Bos W, Azzouzi AR, Barret E et al. Standardization of definitions in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a Delphi consensus project. World J Urol 2016; 34: 1373–1382.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    K J Tay, C N Robertson & T J Polascik

  2. Department of Urology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    M J Scheltema & J de la Rosette

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

    H U Ahmed

  4. L’Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris-Descartes University, Paris, France

    E Barret, R Sanchez-Salas & A Sivaraman

  5. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

    J A Coleman

  6. Servicio de Urología, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología (IVO), Valencia, Spain

    J Dominguez-Escrig

  7. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    S Ghai

  8. Department of Pathology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    J Huang

  9. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

    J S Jones

  10. Sunnybrook Medical Center, Toronto, ON, Canada

    L H Klotz

  11. Saratosa Prostate Cancer Center, Sarasota, FL, USA

    S Scionti

Authors
  1. K J Tay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M J Scheltema
    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. E Barret
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J A Coleman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J Dominguez-Escrig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. S Ghai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. J Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. J S Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. L H Klotz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. C N Robertson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. R Sanchez-Salas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. S Scionti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. A Sivaraman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. J de la Rosette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. T J Polascik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K J Tay.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tay, K., Scheltema, M., Ahmed, H. et al. Patient selection for prostate focal therapy in the era of active surveillance: an International Delphi Consensus Project. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 20, 294–299 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2017.8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2017.8

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links