You are prohibited from using or uploading content you accessed through this website into external applications, bots, software, or websites, including those using artificial intelligence technologies and infrastructure, including deep learning, machine learning and large language models and generative AI.
No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 Apr 2020

Prostate Specific Antigen Criteria to Diagnose Failure of Cancer Control following Focal Therapy of Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Using High Intensity Focused Ultrasound

    View All Author Information


    We determined whether prostate specific antigen criteria after focal high intensity focused ultrasound to treat prostate cancer could diagnose treatment failure.

    Materials and Methods:

    A total of 598 patients in a prospectively maintained national database underwent focal high intensity focused ultrasound with a Sonablate® 500 device from March 2007 to November 2016. Followup consisted of 3-month clinic visits and prostate specific antigen testing in year 1 with prostate specific antigen measurement every 6 to 12 months and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with biopsy for magnetic resonance imaging suspicious for recurrence. Treatment failure was considered any secondary treatment, tumor recurrence with Gleason 3 + 4 or greater disease on prostate biopsy without further treatment or metastasis and/or prostate cancer related mortality. To diagnose failure we evaluated a series of nadir + x thresholds with x values of 0.1 to 2.0 ng/ml.


    Median patient age was 65 years (IQR 60–71) and the median Gleason score was 7 (range 6-9). Gleason 3 + 4 or greater disease was present in 80% of cases. Tumors were radiologically staged as T1c-T2c in 522 of the 596 patients (88%) and as T3a/b in 74 (12.4%). Baseline median prostate specific antigen was 7.80 ng/ml (IQR 5.96–10.45) in failed cases and 6.77 ng/ml (IQR 2.65–9.71) in cases without failure. Optimal performance according to the Youden index to indicate the most appropriate nadir + x at all analyzed time points at 3-month intervals showed that nadir + 1.0 ng/ml would have 27.3% to 100% sensitivity and 39.4% to 85.6% specificity depending on the time of evaluation in the first 3 years. Nadir + 1.5 ng/ml showed 18.2% to 100% sensitivity and 60.6% to 91.8% specificity with nadir + 2.0 ng/ml leading to similar sensitivity and specificity ranges. Nadir + 1.0 ng/ml at 12 months and nadir + 1.5 ng/ml at 24 and 36 months had 100% sensitivity and 96.1% to 100% negative predictive value.


    Following focal high intensity focused ultrasound a prostate specific antigen nadir of 1.0 ng/ml at 12 months and 1.5 ng/ml at 24 to 36 months might be used to triage men requiring magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy. These data need prospective validation.


    • 1. : The role of focal therapy in the management of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2014; 66: 732. Google Scholar
    • 2. : Focal therapy for localised unifocal and multifocal prostate cancer: a prospective development study. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13: 622. Google Scholar
    • 3. : Focal ablation targeted to the index lesion in multifocal localised prostate cancer: a prospective development study. Eur Urol 2015; 68: 927. Google Scholar
    • 4. : Focal therapy: patients, interventions, and outcomes—a report from a consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 771. Google Scholar
    • 5. : A multicentre study of 5-year outcomes following focal therapy in treating clinically significant nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2018; 74: 422. Google Scholar
    • 6. : Standardization of definitions in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a Delphi consensus project. World J Urol 2016; 34: 1373. Google Scholar
    • 7. : Focal therapy in prostate cancer: international multidisciplinary consensus on trial design. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 1078. Google Scholar
    • 8. : EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2017; 71: 630. Google Scholar
    • 9. : Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. Part I: risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options. J Urol 2018; 199: 683. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 10. : Focal therapy in prostate cancer: determinants of success and failure. J Endourol 2010; 24: 819. Google Scholar
    • 11. : Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008; 337: a1655. Google Scholar
    • 12. : IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 2: observational studies in the exploration and assessment stages. BMJ 2013; 346: f3011. Google Scholar
    • 13. : Medium-term outcomes after whole-gland high-intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of nonmetastatic prostate cancer from a multicentre registry cohort. Eur Urol 2016; 70: 668. Google Scholar
    • 14. : Prostate-specific antigen vs. magnetic resonance imaging parameters for assessing oncological outcomes after high intensity-focused ultrasound focal therapy for localized prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2017; 35: 30.e9. Google Scholar
    • 15. ICECaP Working Group: The development of Intermediate Clinical Endpoints in Cancer of the Prostate (ICECaP). J Natl Cancer Inst 2015; 107: djv261. Google Scholar
    • 16. : Focal therapy for prostate cancer: rationale and treatment opportunities. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2013; 25: 461. Google Scholar
    • 17. : Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 65: 965. Google Scholar
    • 18. : Histological outcomes after focal high-intensity focused ultrasound and cryotherapy. World J Urol 2015; 33: 955. Google Scholar
    • 19. : Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 876. Google Scholar
    • 20. : A multi-centre prospective development study evaluating focal therapy using high intensity focused ultrasound for localised prostate cancer: the INDEX study. Contemp Clin Trials 2013; 36: 68. Google Scholar

    Supported by the United Kingdom MRC (Medical Research Council) (HUA) and an unrestricted grant from Sonacare (ME and HUA).