The authors provide an excellent review on high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) technology and present an update on the latest efficacy and safety data relating to the treatment of prostate cancer. HIFU for prostate cancer appears to be highly reproducible with a very short learning curve compared to other minimally invasive surgical techniques (reference 24 in the article). These features, combined with potential repeatability and the "noninvasive" character of this ablative technique make it is easy to see why this technology is gaining publicity.
Complications of the Procedure
The reputedly short learning curve needs to be confirmed in other series. Indeed, that attribute may be questionable when one considers the associated morbidities reported in this review. Including only series from later than 2003, up to 22% of patients undergoing primary HIFU for localized prostate cancer may require a second procedure for completion. Erectile dysfunction rates ranging from 13% to 57% and bladder outlet obstruction in up to 22% have been reported depending on the series. Incontinence rates have improved in recent years, with grade II incontinence reported at 0.4% to 3% since 2004. Delayed-onset complications have not been an issue and, as with other modalities, some complications do resolve over time, with reports of initial incontinence rates after HIFU of 50% at 3 months improving to 7% at 12 months.
The publicity surrounding HIFU has been growing and, encouragingly, more peer review and clinical trials have been evident. This trend will hopefully allow a methodical review of the technology and provide our patients with solid evidence-based information rather than what has been available before.
Objectives Not Yet Achieved
The objective of new technologies is to provide a therapy with equal or greater efficacy than the existing standard, while decreasing morbidity, invasiveness, and cost. These objectives have not yet been reached for HIFU. Morbidity has improved with modifications in recent series, but HIFU continues to have a significant stricture and fistula rate compared with radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy. To decrease morbidity, the additional procedures of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and/or suprapubic tube placement have increased the invasiveness of HIFU therapy, requiring a 2- to 5-day hospital stay.
As such, it would be misleading to market HIFU therapy to physicians and patients as a noninvasive therapy for prostate cancer. Due to the prolonged natural course of prostate cancer, efficacy data will, unfortunately, take a significant amount of time to evaluate, especially in terms of cancer-specific survival. Gelet's results using HIFU as a salvage therapy (reference 33 in the article) are similar to those of salvage cryotherapy in terms of both short-term efficacy and complications. Thus, the initial role of HIFU in treating prostate cancer will likely be as a salvage option for failed radiotherapy.
The technical challenges of HIFU are many, including the consideration of prostate gland size, intensity level, and frequency, balancing image resolution with depth of penetration, movement detection, and visually directed vs predetermined algorithm-based protocols. As with cryotherapy, these difficulties will no doubt improve with time, and in the future, HIFU may have a well defined role in the treatment of prostate cancer. Until that time, however, physicians should proceed with caution and not be swayed by marketing or public pressures to advance the use of HIFU for prostate cancer before it is appropriately validated by mature evidence.
—Thomas E. Keane, MD
—Gary W. Bong, MD