For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
30
views
45
references
 Top references
cited by
6
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      339
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      High Intensity Focused Ultrasound versus Brachytherapy for the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer: A Matched-Pair Analysis

      other

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose. To evaluate postoperative morbidity and long term oncologic and functional outcomes of high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) compared to brachytherapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Material and Methods. Patients treated by brachytherapy were matched 1 : 1 with patients who underwent HIFU. Differences in postoperative complications across the two groups were assessed using Wilcoxon's rank-sum or χ 2 test. Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox regression models were constructed to assess differences in survival rates between the two groups. Results. Brachytherapy was significantly associated with lower voiding LUTS and less frequent acute urinary retention ( p < 0.05). Median oncologic follow-up was 83 months (13–123 months) in the HIFU cohort and 44 months (13–89 months) in the brachytherapy cohort. Median time to achieve PSA nadir was statistically shorter in the HIFU. Biochemical recurrence-free survival rate was significantly higher in the brachytherapy cohort compared to HIFU cohort (68.5% versus 53%, p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference in metastasis-free, cancer specific, and overall survivals was observed between the two groups. Conclusion. HIFU and brachytherapy are safe with no significant difference in cancer specific survival on long term oncologic follow-up. Nonetheless, a randomized controlled trial is needed to confirm these results.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          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.

          Mack Roach, Gerald R. Hanks, Howard Thames … (2006)
          In 1996 the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) sponsored a Consensus Conference to establish a definition of biochemical failure after external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). The ASTRO definition defined prostate specific antigen (PSA) failure as occurring after three consecutive PSA rises after a nadir with the date of failure as the point halfway between the nadir date and the first rise or any rise great enough to provoke initiation of therapy. This definition was not linked to clinical progression or survival; it performed poorly in patients undergoing hormonal therapy (HT), and backdating biased the Kaplan-Meier estimates of event-free survival. A second Consensus Conference was sponsored by ASTRO and the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group in Phoenix, Arizona, on January 21, 2005, to revise the ASTRO definition. The panel recommended: (1) a rise by 2 ng/mL or more above the nadir PSA be considered the standard definition for biochemical failure after EBRT with or without HT; (2) the date of failure be determined "at call" (not backdated). They recommended that investigators be allowed to use the ASTRO Consensus Definition after EBRT alone (no hormonal therapy) with strict adherence to guidelines as to "adequate follow-up." To avoid the artifacts resulting from short follow-up, the reported date of control should be listed as 2 years short of the median follow-up. For example, if the median follow-up is 5 years, control rates at 3 years should be cited. Retaining a strict version of the ASTRO definition would allow comparisons with a large existing body of literature.
          Article 0 comments Cited 571 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Reporting and grading of complications after urologic surgical procedures: an ad hoc EAU guidelines panel assessment and recommendations.

            Dionysios Mitropoulos, Walter Artibani, Markus Graefen … (2012)
            The incidence of postoperative complications is still the most frequently used surrogate marker of quality in surgery, but no standard guidelines or criteria exist for reporting surgical complications in the area of urology. To review the available reporting systems used for urologic surgical complications, to establish a possible change in attitude towards reporting of complications using standardised systems, to assess systematically the Clavien-Dindo system when used for the reporting of complications related to urologic surgical procedures, to identify shortcomings in reporting complications, and to propose recommendations for the development and implementation of future reporting systems that are focused on patient-centred outcomes. Standardised systems for reporting and classification of surgical complications were identified through a systematic review of the literature. To establish a possible change in attitude towards reporting of complications related to urologic procedures, we performed a systematic literature search of all papers reporting complications after urologic surgery published in European Urology, Journal of Urology, Urology, BJU International, and World Journal of Urology in 1999-2000 and 2009-2010. Data identification for the systematic assessment of the Clavien-Dindo system currently used for the reporting of complications related to urologic surgical interventions involved a Medline/Embase search and the search engines of individual urologic journals and publishers using Clavien, urology, and complications as keywords. All selected papers were full-text retrieved and assessed; analysis was done based on structured forms. The systematic review of the literature for standardised systems used for reporting and classification of surgical complications revealed five such systems. As far as the attitude of urologists towards reporting of complications, a shift could be seen in the number of studies using most of the Martin criteria, as well as in the number of studies using either standardised criteria or the Clavien-Dindo system. The latter system was not properly used in 72 papers (35.3%). Uniformed reporting of complications after urologic procedures will aid all those involved in patient care and scientific publishing (authors, reviewers, and editors). It will also contribute to the improvement of the scientific quality of papers published in the field of urologic surgery. When reporting the outcomes of urologic procedures, the committee proposes a series of quality criteria. Copyright © 2011 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
            Article 0 comments Cited 127 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              American Brachytherapy Society consensus guidelines for transrectal ultrasound-guided permanent prostate brachytherapy.

              Brian J. Davis, Eric Horwitz, W Robert Lee … (2012)
              To provide updated American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) guidelines for transrectal ultrasound-guided transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy (PPB). The ABS formed a committee of brachytherapists and researchers experienced in the clinical practice of PPB to formulate updated guidelines for this technique. Sources of input for these guidelines included prior published guidelines, clinical trials, published literature, and experience of the committee. The recommendations of the committee were reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors of the ABS. Patients with high probability of organ-confined disease or limited extraprostatic extension are considered appropriate candidates for PPB monotherapy. Low-risk patients may be treated with PPB alone without the need for supplemental external beam radiotherapy. High-risk patients should receive supplemental external beam radiotherapy if PPB is used. Intermediate-risk patients should be considered on an individual case basis. Intermediate-risk patients with favorable features may appropriately be treated with PPB monotherapy but results from confirmatory clinical trials are pending. Computed tomography-based postimplant dosimetry performed within 60 days of the implant is considered essential for maintenance of a satisfactory quality assurance program. Postimplant computed tomography-magnetic resonance image fusion is viewed as useful, but not mandatory. Updated guidelines for patient selection, workup, treatment, postimplant dosimetry, and followup are provided. These recommendations are intended to be advisory in nature with the ultimate responsibility for the care of the patients resting with the treating physicians. Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier Inc.
              Article 0 comments Cited 100 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Adv Urol
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Adv Urol
                Journal ID (publisher-id): AU
                Title: Advances in Urology
                Publisher: Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                ISSN (Print): 1687-6369
                ISSN (Electronic): 1687-6377
                Publication date (Print): 2015
                Publication date (Electronic): 19 August 2015
                Volume: 2015
                Electronic Location Identifier: 350324
                Affiliations
                1Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1000 Brussels, Belgium
                2Department of Urology, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1070 Brussels, Belgium
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Nazareno Suardi

                Article
                DOI: 10.1155/2015/350324
                PMC ID: 4556829
                SO-VID: d6cfa117-e627-4416-917a-62045995f7c2
                Copyright © Copyright © 2015 Fouad Aoun et al.
                License:

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Date received : 4 March 2015
                Date accepted : 9 June 2015
                Categories
                Subject: Clinical Study

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Urology
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Urology

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content339

                See all similar

                Cited by6

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors596

                See all reference authors