Loading…

Feasibility and safety of focal irreversible electroporation as salvage treatment for localized radio‐recurrent prostate cancer

Objectives To evaluate the feasibility, safety, early quality‐of‐life (QoL) and oncological outcomes of salvage focal irreversible electroporation (IRE) for radio‐recurrent prostate cancer (PCa). Patients and Methods Patients with localized, radio‐recurrent PCa without evidence of metastatic or noda...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:BJU international 2017-11, Vol.120 (S3), p.51-58
Main Authors: Scheltema, Matthijs J., Bos, Willemien, Siriwardana, Amila R., Kalsbeek, Anton M.F., Thompson, James E., Ting, Francis, Böhm, Maret, Haynes, Anne‐Maree, Shnier, Ron, Delprado, Warick, Stricker, Phillip D.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3881-f03c0644608f472e79ccf7ef9195ecb433c1bd13d5c5bc58e5ea97dc21010fad3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3881-f03c0644608f472e79ccf7ef9195ecb433c1bd13d5c5bc58e5ea97dc21010fad3
container_end_page 58
container_issue S3
container_start_page 51
container_title BJU international
container_volume 120
creator Scheltema, Matthijs J.
Bos, Willemien
Siriwardana, Amila R.
Kalsbeek, Anton M.F.
Thompson, James E.
Ting, Francis
Böhm, Maret
Haynes, Anne‐Maree
Shnier, Ron
Delprado, Warick
Stricker, Phillip D.
description Objectives To evaluate the feasibility, safety, early quality‐of‐life (QoL) and oncological outcomes of salvage focal irreversible electroporation (IRE) for radio‐recurrent prostate cancer (PCa). Patients and Methods Patients with localized, radio‐recurrent PCa without evidence of metastatic or nodal disease were offered focal IRE according to the consensus guidelines. Patients with a minimum follow‐up of 6 months were eligible for analysis. Adverse events were monitored using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE version 4.0). Patient‐reported QoL data were collected at baseline, 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), the American Urological Association (AUA) symptom score and the 12‐item short‐from health survey (SF‐12) physical and mental component summary questionnaires. Oncological control was evaluated according to serial prostate‐specific antigen (PSA), 6‐month multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and 12‐month prostate biopsy. Wilcoxon's signed rank test was used to assess QoL differences over time in paired continuous variables. Results A total of 18 patients were included in the analysis. The median follow‐up was 21 months. No high‐grade adverse events (CTCAE >2) or recto‐urethral fistulae occurred. No statistically significant declines were observed in QoL outcomes (n = 11) on the EPIC bowel domain (P = 0.29), AUA symptom score (P = 0.77), or the SF‐12 physical (P = 0.17) or SF‐12 mental component summary (P = 0.77) questionnaires. At 6 months, patients who had undergone salvage therapy experienced a decline in EPIC sexual domain score (median of 38–24; P = 0.028) and urinary domain (median of 96–92; P = 0.074). Pad‐free continence and erections sufficient for intercourse were preserved in 8/11 patients and 2/6 patients at 6 months, respectively. The mpMRI was clear in 11/13 patients, with two single out‐field lesions (true‐positive and false‐positive, respectively). The median (interquartile range) nadir PSA was 0.39 (0.04–0.43) μg/L. Three and four patients experienced biochemical failure using the Phoenix and Stuttgart definitions of biochemical failure, respectively. Eight out of 10 of the patients were clear of any PCa on follow‐up biopsy, whereas two patients had significant PCa on follow‐up biopsy (International Society of Urological Pathology grade 5). Conclusion Our short‐term safety, QoL and oncological control data show that foca
doi_str_mv 10.1111/bju.13991
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1932167260</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1953829838</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3881-f03c0644608f472e79ccf7ef9195ecb433c1bd13d5c5bc58e5ea97dc21010fad3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kctOJCEUholx4n3hCxgSN7pohaIusFTjZSYms9HEXYWiDoYOXbRAaXpW4xv4jD6JR1tdTDJsOIHvfFx-QnY5O-I4jrvpeMSFUnyFbPCyLiclZ3erXzVT9TrZTGnKGC7U1RpZL6QUJa-bDfJ8ATq5znmXF1QPPU3aApbBUhuM9tTFCI8QkfFAwYPJMcxD1NmFgeqEvH_U90BzBJ1nMGTsi9S_97o_0NOoexde_75EMCOqcH8eQ8o6AzV6MBC3yQ-rfYKdz3mL3F6c35xdTa5_X_48O7meGCEln1gmDKvLsmbSlk0BjTLGNmAVVxWYrhTC8K7noq9M1ZlKQgVaNb0pOOPM6l5skYOlF89_GCHlduaSAe_1AGFMLVeiwC8paobo_j_oNIxxwNshVQlZKCkkUodLyuCDUgTbzqOb6bhoOWvfc2kxl_YjF2T3Po1jN4P-m_wKAoHjJfDkPCz-b2pPf90ulW_hDZsb</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1953829838</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Feasibility and safety of focal irreversible electroporation as salvage treatment for localized radio‐recurrent prostate cancer</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read &amp; Publish Collection</source><creator>Scheltema, Matthijs J. ; Bos, Willemien ; Siriwardana, Amila R. ; Kalsbeek, Anton M.F. ; Thompson, James E. ; Ting, Francis ; Böhm, Maret ; Haynes, Anne‐Maree ; Shnier, Ron ; Delprado, Warick ; Stricker, Phillip D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Scheltema, Matthijs J. ; Bos, Willemien ; Siriwardana, Amila R. ; Kalsbeek, Anton M.F. ; Thompson, James E. ; Ting, Francis ; Böhm, Maret ; Haynes, Anne‐Maree ; Shnier, Ron ; Delprado, Warick ; Stricker, Phillip D.</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives To evaluate the feasibility, safety, early quality‐of‐life (QoL) and oncological outcomes of salvage focal irreversible electroporation (IRE) for radio‐recurrent prostate cancer (PCa). Patients and Methods Patients with localized, radio‐recurrent PCa without evidence of metastatic or nodal disease were offered focal IRE according to the consensus guidelines. Patients with a minimum follow‐up of 6 months were eligible for analysis. Adverse events were monitored using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE version 4.0). Patient‐reported QoL data were collected at baseline, 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), the American Urological Association (AUA) symptom score and the 12‐item short‐from health survey (SF‐12) physical and mental component summary questionnaires. Oncological control was evaluated according to serial prostate‐specific antigen (PSA), 6‐month multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and 12‐month prostate biopsy. Wilcoxon's signed rank test was used to assess QoL differences over time in paired continuous variables. Results A total of 18 patients were included in the analysis. The median follow‐up was 21 months. No high‐grade adverse events (CTCAE &gt;2) or recto‐urethral fistulae occurred. No statistically significant declines were observed in QoL outcomes (n = 11) on the EPIC bowel domain (P = 0.29), AUA symptom score (P = 0.77), or the SF‐12 physical (P = 0.17) or SF‐12 mental component summary (P = 0.77) questionnaires. At 6 months, patients who had undergone salvage therapy experienced a decline in EPIC sexual domain score (median of 38–24; P = 0.028) and urinary domain (median of 96–92; P = 0.074). Pad‐free continence and erections sufficient for intercourse were preserved in 8/11 patients and 2/6 patients at 6 months, respectively. The mpMRI was clear in 11/13 patients, with two single out‐field lesions (true‐positive and false‐positive, respectively). The median (interquartile range) nadir PSA was 0.39 (0.04–0.43) μg/L. Three and four patients experienced biochemical failure using the Phoenix and Stuttgart definitions of biochemical failure, respectively. Eight out of 10 of the patients were clear of any PCa on follow‐up biopsy, whereas two patients had significant PCa on follow‐up biopsy (International Society of Urological Pathology grade 5). Conclusion Our short‐term safety, QoL and oncological control data show that focal IRE is a feasible salvage option for localized radio‐recurrent PCa. A prospective multicentre study (FIRE trial) has been initiated that will provide further insight into the ability of focal IRE to obtain oncological control of radio‐recurrent PCa with acceptable patient morbidity.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1464-4096</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1464-410X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/bju.13991</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28834167</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Ablation Techniques - adverse effects ; Ablation Techniques - methods ; Aged ; Biopsy ; Electroporation ; Feasibility Studies ; Fistulae ; focal therapy ; Humans ; Intestine ; irreversible electroporation ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Male ; Metastases ; Morbidity ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - epidemiology ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - therapy ; Patients ; prostate ; Prostate cancer ; Prostate-specific antigen ; Prostatic Neoplasms - epidemiology ; Prostatic Neoplasms - therapy ; Quality of Life ; Safety ; salvage ; Salvage Therapy - adverse effects ; Salvage Therapy - methods ; Statistical analysis ; Terminology ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>BJU international, 2017-11, Vol.120 (S3), p.51-58</ispartof><rights>2017 The Authors BJU International © 2017 BJU International Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2017 The Authors BJU International © 2017 BJU International Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>BJUI © 2017 BJU International</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3881-f03c0644608f472e79ccf7ef9195ecb433c1bd13d5c5bc58e5ea97dc21010fad3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3881-f03c0644608f472e79ccf7ef9195ecb433c1bd13d5c5bc58e5ea97dc21010fad3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28834167$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Scheltema, Matthijs J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bos, Willemien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siriwardana, Amila R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kalsbeek, Anton M.F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thompson, James E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ting, Francis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Böhm, Maret</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haynes, Anne‐Maree</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shnier, Ron</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Delprado, Warick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stricker, Phillip D.</creatorcontrib><title>Feasibility and safety of focal irreversible electroporation as salvage treatment for localized radio‐recurrent prostate cancer</title><title>BJU international</title><addtitle>BJU Int</addtitle><description>Objectives To evaluate the feasibility, safety, early quality‐of‐life (QoL) and oncological outcomes of salvage focal irreversible electroporation (IRE) for radio‐recurrent prostate cancer (PCa). Patients and Methods Patients with localized, radio‐recurrent PCa without evidence of metastatic or nodal disease were offered focal IRE according to the consensus guidelines. Patients with a minimum follow‐up of 6 months were eligible for analysis. Adverse events were monitored using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE version 4.0). Patient‐reported QoL data were collected at baseline, 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), the American Urological Association (AUA) symptom score and the 12‐item short‐from health survey (SF‐12) physical and mental component summary questionnaires. Oncological control was evaluated according to serial prostate‐specific antigen (PSA), 6‐month multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and 12‐month prostate biopsy. Wilcoxon's signed rank test was used to assess QoL differences over time in paired continuous variables. Results A total of 18 patients were included in the analysis. The median follow‐up was 21 months. No high‐grade adverse events (CTCAE &gt;2) or recto‐urethral fistulae occurred. No statistically significant declines were observed in QoL outcomes (n = 11) on the EPIC bowel domain (P = 0.29), AUA symptom score (P = 0.77), or the SF‐12 physical (P = 0.17) or SF‐12 mental component summary (P = 0.77) questionnaires. At 6 months, patients who had undergone salvage therapy experienced a decline in EPIC sexual domain score (median of 38–24; P = 0.028) and urinary domain (median of 96–92; P = 0.074). Pad‐free continence and erections sufficient for intercourse were preserved in 8/11 patients and 2/6 patients at 6 months, respectively. The mpMRI was clear in 11/13 patients, with two single out‐field lesions (true‐positive and false‐positive, respectively). The median (interquartile range) nadir PSA was 0.39 (0.04–0.43) μg/L. Three and four patients experienced biochemical failure using the Phoenix and Stuttgart definitions of biochemical failure, respectively. Eight out of 10 of the patients were clear of any PCa on follow‐up biopsy, whereas two patients had significant PCa on follow‐up biopsy (International Society of Urological Pathology grade 5). Conclusion Our short‐term safety, QoL and oncological control data show that focal IRE is a feasible salvage option for localized radio‐recurrent PCa. A prospective multicentre study (FIRE trial) has been initiated that will provide further insight into the ability of focal IRE to obtain oncological control of radio‐recurrent PCa with acceptable patient morbidity.</description><subject>Ablation Techniques - adverse effects</subject><subject>Ablation Techniques - methods</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Electroporation</subject><subject>Feasibility Studies</subject><subject>Fistulae</subject><subject>focal therapy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intestine</subject><subject>irreversible electroporation</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Metastases</subject><subject>Morbidity</subject><subject>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - epidemiology</subject><subject>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - therapy</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>prostate</subject><subject>Prostate cancer</subject><subject>Prostate-specific antigen</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - epidemiology</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>Safety</subject><subject>salvage</subject><subject>Salvage Therapy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Salvage Therapy - methods</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Terminology</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1464-4096</issn><issn>1464-410X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kctOJCEUholx4n3hCxgSN7pohaIusFTjZSYms9HEXYWiDoYOXbRAaXpW4xv4jD6JR1tdTDJsOIHvfFx-QnY5O-I4jrvpeMSFUnyFbPCyLiclZ3erXzVT9TrZTGnKGC7U1RpZL6QUJa-bDfJ8ATq5znmXF1QPPU3aApbBUhuM9tTFCI8QkfFAwYPJMcxD1NmFgeqEvH_U90BzBJ1nMGTsi9S_97o_0NOoexde_75EMCOqcH8eQ8o6AzV6MBC3yQ-rfYKdz3mL3F6c35xdTa5_X_48O7meGCEln1gmDKvLsmbSlk0BjTLGNmAVVxWYrhTC8K7noq9M1ZlKQgVaNb0pOOPM6l5skYOlF89_GCHlduaSAe_1AGFMLVeiwC8paobo_j_oNIxxwNshVQlZKCkkUodLyuCDUgTbzqOb6bhoOWvfc2kxl_YjF2T3Po1jN4P-m_wKAoHjJfDkPCz-b2pPf90ulW_hDZsb</recordid><startdate>201711</startdate><enddate>201711</enddate><creator>Scheltema, Matthijs J.</creator><creator>Bos, Willemien</creator><creator>Siriwardana, Amila R.</creator><creator>Kalsbeek, Anton M.F.</creator><creator>Thompson, James E.</creator><creator>Ting, Francis</creator><creator>Böhm, Maret</creator><creator>Haynes, Anne‐Maree</creator><creator>Shnier, Ron</creator><creator>Delprado, Warick</creator><creator>Stricker, Phillip D.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201711</creationdate><title>Feasibility and safety of focal irreversible electroporation as salvage treatment for localized radio‐recurrent prostate cancer</title><author>Scheltema, Matthijs J. ; Bos, Willemien ; Siriwardana, Amila R. ; Kalsbeek, Anton M.F. ; Thompson, James E. ; Ting, Francis ; Böhm, Maret ; Haynes, Anne‐Maree ; Shnier, Ron ; Delprado, Warick ; Stricker, Phillip D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3881-f03c0644608f472e79ccf7ef9195ecb433c1bd13d5c5bc58e5ea97dc21010fad3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Ablation Techniques - adverse effects</topic><topic>Ablation Techniques - methods</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Electroporation</topic><topic>Feasibility Studies</topic><topic>Fistulae</topic><topic>focal therapy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intestine</topic><topic>irreversible electroporation</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Metastases</topic><topic>Morbidity</topic><topic>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - epidemiology</topic><topic>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - therapy</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>prostate</topic><topic>Prostate cancer</topic><topic>Prostate-specific antigen</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - epidemiology</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>Safety</topic><topic>salvage</topic><topic>Salvage Therapy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Salvage Therapy - methods</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Terminology</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Scheltema, Matthijs J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bos, Willemien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siriwardana, Amila R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kalsbeek, Anton M.F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thompson, James E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ting, Francis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Böhm, Maret</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haynes, Anne‐Maree</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shnier, Ron</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Delprado, Warick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stricker, Phillip D.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>BJU international</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Scheltema, Matthijs J.</au><au>Bos, Willemien</au><au>Siriwardana, Amila R.</au><au>Kalsbeek, Anton M.F.</au><au>Thompson, James E.</au><au>Ting, Francis</au><au>Böhm, Maret</au><au>Haynes, Anne‐Maree</au><au>Shnier, Ron</au><au>Delprado, Warick</au><au>Stricker, Phillip D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Feasibility and safety of focal irreversible electroporation as salvage treatment for localized radio‐recurrent prostate cancer</atitle><jtitle>BJU international</jtitle><addtitle>BJU Int</addtitle><date>2017-11</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>120</volume><issue>S3</issue><spage>51</spage><epage>58</epage><pages>51-58</pages><issn>1464-4096</issn><eissn>1464-410X</eissn><abstract>Objectives To evaluate the feasibility, safety, early quality‐of‐life (QoL) and oncological outcomes of salvage focal irreversible electroporation (IRE) for radio‐recurrent prostate cancer (PCa). Patients and Methods Patients with localized, radio‐recurrent PCa without evidence of metastatic or nodal disease were offered focal IRE according to the consensus guidelines. Patients with a minimum follow‐up of 6 months were eligible for analysis. Adverse events were monitored using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE version 4.0). Patient‐reported QoL data were collected at baseline, 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), the American Urological Association (AUA) symptom score and the 12‐item short‐from health survey (SF‐12) physical and mental component summary questionnaires. Oncological control was evaluated according to serial prostate‐specific antigen (PSA), 6‐month multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and 12‐month prostate biopsy. Wilcoxon's signed rank test was used to assess QoL differences over time in paired continuous variables. Results A total of 18 patients were included in the analysis. The median follow‐up was 21 months. No high‐grade adverse events (CTCAE &gt;2) or recto‐urethral fistulae occurred. No statistically significant declines were observed in QoL outcomes (n = 11) on the EPIC bowel domain (P = 0.29), AUA symptom score (P = 0.77), or the SF‐12 physical (P = 0.17) or SF‐12 mental component summary (P = 0.77) questionnaires. At 6 months, patients who had undergone salvage therapy experienced a decline in EPIC sexual domain score (median of 38–24; P = 0.028) and urinary domain (median of 96–92; P = 0.074). Pad‐free continence and erections sufficient for intercourse were preserved in 8/11 patients and 2/6 patients at 6 months, respectively. The mpMRI was clear in 11/13 patients, with two single out‐field lesions (true‐positive and false‐positive, respectively). The median (interquartile range) nadir PSA was 0.39 (0.04–0.43) μg/L. Three and four patients experienced biochemical failure using the Phoenix and Stuttgart definitions of biochemical failure, respectively. Eight out of 10 of the patients were clear of any PCa on follow‐up biopsy, whereas two patients had significant PCa on follow‐up biopsy (International Society of Urological Pathology grade 5). Conclusion Our short‐term safety, QoL and oncological control data show that focal IRE is a feasible salvage option for localized radio‐recurrent PCa. A prospective multicentre study (FIRE trial) has been initiated that will provide further insight into the ability of focal IRE to obtain oncological control of radio‐recurrent PCa with acceptable patient morbidity.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>28834167</pmid><doi>10.1111/bju.13991</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1464-4096
ispartof BJU international, 2017-11, Vol.120 (S3), p.51-58
issn 1464-4096
1464-410X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1932167260
source Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection
subjects Ablation Techniques - adverse effects
Ablation Techniques - methods
Aged
Biopsy
Electroporation
Feasibility Studies
Fistulae
focal therapy
Humans
Intestine
irreversible electroporation
Magnetic resonance imaging
Male
Metastases
Morbidity
Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - epidemiology
Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - therapy
Patients
prostate
Prostate cancer
Prostate-specific antigen
Prostatic Neoplasms - epidemiology
Prostatic Neoplasms - therapy
Quality of Life
Safety
salvage
Salvage Therapy - adverse effects
Salvage Therapy - methods
Statistical analysis
Terminology
Treatment Outcome
title Feasibility and safety of focal irreversible electroporation as salvage treatment for localized radio‐recurrent prostate cancer
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T14%3A04%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Feasibility%20and%20safety%20of%20focal%20irreversible%20electroporation%20as%20salvage%20treatment%20for%20localized%20radio%E2%80%90recurrent%20prostate%20cancer&rft.jtitle=BJU%20international&rft.au=Scheltema,%20Matthijs%20J.&rft.date=2017-11&rft.volume=120&rft.issue=S3&rft.spage=51&rft.epage=58&rft.pages=51-58&rft.issn=1464-4096&rft.eissn=1464-410X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/bju.13991&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1953829838%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3881-f03c0644608f472e79ccf7ef9195ecb433c1bd13d5c5bc58e5ea97dc21010fad3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1953829838&rft_id=info:pmid/28834167&rfr_iscdi=true