PurposeTo define the role of focal laser ablation (FLA) as clinical treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) using the Delphi consensus method.MethodsA panel of international experts in the field of focal therapy (FT) in PCa conducted a collaborative consensus project using the Delphi method. Experts were invited to online questionnaires focusing on patient selection and treatment of PCa with FLA during four subsequent rounds. After each round, outcomes were displayed, and questionnaires were modified based on the comments provided by panelists. Results were finalized and discussed during face-to-face meetings.ResultsThirty-seven experts agreed to participate, and consensus was achieved on 39/43 topics. Clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was defined as any volume Grade Group 2 [Gleason score (GS) 3+4]. Focal therapy was specified as treatment of all csPCa and can be considered primary treatment as an alternative to radical treatment in carefully selected patients. In patients with intermediate-risk PCa (GS 3+4) as well as patients with MRI-visible and biopsy-confirmed local recurrence, FLA is optimal for targeted ablation of a specific magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-visible focus. However, FLA should not be applied to candidates for active surveillance and close follow-up is required. Suitability for FLA is based on tumor volume, location to vital structures, GS, MRI-visibility, and biopsy confirmation.ConclusionFocal laser ablation is a promising technique for treatment of clinically localized PCa and should ideally be performed within approved clinical trials. So far, only few studies have reported on FLA and further validation with longer follow-up is mandatory before widespread clinical implementation is justified.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00345-019-02636-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Purpose To assess the safety and performance of a MRI-directed diagnostic pathway for patients with first-time suspicion of prostate cancer in a non-university hospital. Methods Between May 2017 and December 2018 all biopsy-naive patients examined in our hospital followed a MRI-directed diagnostic work-up algorithm based on PI-RADS score. In short, PI-RADS 1–2 was generally not biopsied and PI-RADS 3–5 was reviewed by a multidisciplinary team. Patients with PI-RADS 4-5 were all referred to biopsy, either transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy or MRI in-bore biopsy for small tumors and for sites difficult to access. PI-RADS scores were compared to the histopathology from biopsies and surgical specimens for patients who had prostatectomy. Non-biopsied patients were referred to a safety net monitoring regimen. Results Two hundred and ninety-eight men were enrolled. 97 (33%) had PI-RADS 1–2, 44 (15%) had PI-RADS 3, and 157 (53%) had PI-RADS 4–5. 116 (39%) of the patients avoided biopsy. None of these were diagnosed with significant cancer within 2–3.5 years of safety net monitoring. Almost all high ISUP grade groups (≥ 3) were in the PI-RADS 4–5 category (98%). Prostatectomy specimens and systematic biopsies from MRI-negative areas indicated that very few clinically significant cancers were missed by the MRI-directed diagnostic pathway. Conclusion Our findings add to evidence that a MRI-directed diagnostic pathway can be safely established in a non-university hospital. The pathway reduced the number of biopsies and reliably detected the site of the most aggressive cancers. Graphic abstract

Background Focal treatment of prostate cancer recurrence is emerging and increases the demand for precision in imaging; pure detection is no longer enough and accurate localization is needed. Purpose To investigate the ability of anti-1-amino-3-[18F]fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid (FACBC) PET/CT to localize radio-recurrences within the prostate, compared to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and with histopathology as the reference standard. Material and Methods This prospective salvage focal brachytherapy protocol included 20 patients (mean age = 66 years; age range = 57–72 years) with biochemical recurrence after primary radiotherapy. All patients underwent mpMRI, FACBC PET/CT, prostate biopsies, and bone marrow aspiration. The mean time between mpMRI and FACBC PET/CT was 68 days (range = 5–147 days). Two radiologists and two nuclear medicine physicians independently interpreted MRI and PET. Based on schematic drawings, the quadrant (right, left, anterior, posterior) and the level (apex, mid, base) of tumor recurrence were compared and correlated to histopathology. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Results PET correctly localized the recurrence in 15 of 20 patients and MRI correctly localized 19 of 20 patients. MRI and PET were concordant for 14 of these 20 patients. There was perfect agreement between the MRI radiologists. Except for one case in which the lesion was only detected by one of the readers, there was also agreement between the nuclear medicine physicians. Conclusions FACBC PET/CT detected fewer histological verified radio-recurrences within the prostate than mpMRI. In accordance with previous studies, we found that the limitations of FACBC PET were small tumor amounts and uptake in hyperplastic benign tissue.

Prostate interventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is now routinely performed in many centers. Its more widespread acceptance is limited by the cost of the use of MRI largely related to the long duration time of the procedures. However, the benefit of a robotic assistance has generated a new interest, because it substantially shortens the procedure time, while improving the accuracy. MRI-guided biopsy is considered as an appealing alternative to transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided fusion biopsy, given the limitations of TRUS-MRI image registration systems. MRI-guided focal treatment also benefits from robotic assistance and from the unique property of MRI, which allows the measurement of the temperature in real-time during tumor ablation. The transrectal and transperineal approaches can be used and the respective indications of each pathway will depend on several factors, including the location of the tumor and the examination time, which will condition the occupation time of the MR room, a major factor influencing the overall cost of MRI-guided procedures. This review addresses the current practice of prostate MRI-guided interventional procedures and potential future applications.