Partial-gland Cryoablation Outcomes for Localized Prostate Cancer in Patients with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)-visible and MRI-invisible Lesions

Abstract

Background: Expert consensus recommends treatment of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-visible prostate cancer (PCa). Outcomes of partial-gland ablation (PGA) for MRI-invisible PCa remain unknown. Objective: To compare recurrence-free survival, adverse events, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes following cryoablation of MRI-visible vs invisible PCa. Design, setting, and participants: We analyzed data for 75 men who underwent cryoablation therapy between January 2017 and January 2022. PCa identified on MRI-targeted and/or adjacent systematic biopsy cores was defined as MRI-visible, whereas PCa identified on systematic biopsy beyond the targeted zone was defined as MRI-invisible. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary outcome was recurrence at 12 mo after PGA, defined as the presence of clinically significant PCa (grade group [GG] ≥2) on surveillance biopsy. Adverse events were captured using the Clavien-Dindo classification and HRQoL was captured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index-Clinical Practice (EPIC-CP) tool. Results and limitations: Of the 58 men treated for MRI-visible and 17 treated for MRI-invisible lesions, 51 (88%) and 16 (94%), respectively, had at least one surveillance biopsy performed. There were no statistically significant differences in age, race, body mass index, biopsy GG, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, or treatment extent between the MRI-visible and MRI-invisible groups. Median follow-up was 44 mo (interquartile range 17–54) and did not significantly differ between the groups. The recurrence rate at 12 mo did not significantly differ between the groups (MRI-visible 39%, MRI-invisible 19%; p = 0.2), and log-rank survival analysis demonstrated no significant difference in recurrence-free survival (p = 0.15). Adverse event rates did not significantly differ (MRI-visible 29%, MRI-invisible 53%; p = 0.092); no man in the MRI-visible group had a Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complication, while one subject in the MRI-invisible group had a Clavien-Dindo grade III complication. Median EPIC-CP urinary and sexual function scores were similar for the two groups at baseline and at 12 mo after PGA. Study limitations include the retrospective design and small sample size. Conclusions: We observed similar cancer control, adverse event, and HRQoL outcomes for MRI-visible versus MRI-invisible PCa in the first comparison of partial-gland cryoablation. Longer follow-up and external validation of our findings are needed to inform patient selection for PGA for MRI-invisible PCa. Patient summary: Patients with prostate cancer lesions that are not visible on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans who undergo partial gland ablation may have similar treatment outcomes compared to patients with cancer lesions that are visible on MRI.

Keywords

• Prostatic neoplasms
• Cryosurgery
• Treatment failure