Case Discussion 1 – Patient and Treatment Selection
Abhinav Sidana, MD, MPH, Peter K.F. Chiu, MD, PhD, FRCSEd, Behfar Edhaie, MD, Arvin K. George, MD, Preston C. Sprenkle, MD, and Samir S. Taneja, MD
Read MoreSelect Page
Posted by Abhinav Sidana, MD, MPH | Aug 2024
Abhinav Sidana, MD, MPH, Peter K.F. Chiu, MD, PhD, FRCSEd, Behfar Edhaie, MD, Arvin K. George, MD, Preston C. Sprenkle, MD, and Samir S. Taneja, MD
Read MorePosted by Arvin George, MD | Sep 2023
Arvin K. George, MD, reviews the strengths and limitations of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), identifies strategies to optimize the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, and reviews outcomes of precision prostatectomy. Dr. George begins by addressing the weak predictive value of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI,) calling it imperfect. However, data from the PROMIS study supports mpMRI over transrectal ultrasound (TRUS.)
Dr. George cites data on MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis, and defines precision prostatectomy as a subtotal prostatectomy that preserves tissue and nerves. Dr. George illustrates two scenarios to support the use of precision prostatectomy in conjunction with a 3D ultrasound to guide treatment—one for biopsy-naive patients and the other for patients with prior biopsy. He then shares data on precision prostatectomy outcomes, in which all patients maintained social continence and 85% of patients maintained potency after one year.
In regards to remission rates, only 6.6% of post-mpMRI biopsy patients presented with clinically significant prostate cancer at 36 months, with over 90% of patients requiring no secondary treatment. Dr. George reiterates that mpMRI is not perfect, but its preservative effects on patients makes it worth further exploration.
About the 26th Annual Southwest Prostate Cancer Symposium:
This conference educated attendees about advances in the management of localized and advanced prostate cancer, with a focus on imaging, technology, and training in the related devices. It included a scientific session, as well as live demonstrations of surgical techniques. You can learn more about the conference here.
Posted by Arvin George, MD | Jan 2023
Arvin K. George, MD, discusses the advantages and limitations of the Rezum procedure for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
Read MorePosted by Arvin George, MD | Sep 2021
Arvin George, MD, Assistant Professor of Urology at the University of Michigan in Midland, Michigan, reviews high intensity ultrasound (HIFU) for prostate cancer and outlines guidelines, patient selection, complications, and outcomes for the treatment. The NCCN guidelines state that HIFU is included as a salvage option after prior treatment failure, specifically radiation failure, but is not recommended as routine primary therapy due to lack of long-term comparative data. The EAU guidelines say to only offer HIFU within clinical trials or well-designed prospective cohorts. Dr. George describes the ideal HIFU patient as having unifocal, clinically-significant, and MRI-visible disease that has an absence of high-risk features. He then goes over a list of common complications and their rates of occurrence: retention (7-27%), hematoma (0-1.6%), sloughing (3-8%), urinary tract infection (5-18%), orchitis (2-8%), abscess (1-2%), fistula (.3-3%), pain (.5-3%), erectile dysfunction (12-30%), incontinence (0-5%), and stricture (2-4%). Dr. George says that to prevent complications one should not retreat the posterior zone, and should plan above the capsule while avoiding near field heat. He then reviews a study on focal therapy compared to radical prostatectomy for non-metastatic prostate cancer that found mostly HIFU focal therapy to have a failure free survival (FFS) rate comparable to that of radical prostatectomy, never exceeding a difference of 13%. Dr. George also discusses another study of medium-term oncological outcomes in a large cohort of men treated with either focal or hemi-ablation using high-intensity focused ultrasonography for primary localized prostate cancer which showed FFS rates of 86% at 24 months, 64% at 60 months, and 54% at 96 months. He concludes with a final study which consolidated and compared HIFU’s outcomes to those of active monitoring, radiotherapy, and radical prostatectomy, showing that HIFU produces consistently better quality of life outcomes.
Read More