4.4 Article

Focal cryosurgery: Encouraging health outcomes for unifocal prostate cancer

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 69, 期 6, 页码 1117-1120

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.02.047

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives Owing to the ability to better detect small-volume tumors, we have seen an increasing population of men with low-risk unifocal prostate cancer. We report our safety and efficacy experience of focal cryoablation of the prostate to maintain potency and preserve genitourinary function in men with localized, unifocal disease. Methods From June 2002 to December 2005, 25 patients with primary unifocal prostate cancer were treated with focal cryoablation of the prostate. The patients were followed LIP with physical examinations, morbidity questionnaires, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) determinations every 3 months for the first year and every 6 to 12 months thereafter. Patients with a PSA nadir greater than 1.0 ng/mL or a nadir plus 2 ng/mL underwent repeat biopsy to assess for cancer recurrence. Results The median age was 68 years (range 48 to 78). The median preoperative PSA level was 6.0 ng/mL, and the postoperative PSA nadir was 2.4 ng/mL. The median follow-up was 28 months. Seventeen patients remained potent. No patients reported worsened lower urinary tract symptoms, incontinence, rectal pain, perineal discomfort, or fistula formation. The median PSA nadir was 2.4 ng/mL, and 40% of patients had a PSA nadir of less than 1.0 ng/mL. Of the 25 patients, 21 (84%) had not experienced biochemical failure, defined as a greater than 50% PSA nadir reduction. Seven patients underwent repeat biopsy, and prostate cancer was detected in the contralateral gland in 2 patients and in the area of previous cryosurgery in 1 patient. Conclusions Focal cryoablation of the prostate has exhibited minimal morbidity and promising efficacy in Our 3-year observation. Longer follow-up is necessary to determine its role in the treatment of patients with low-risk unifocal prostate cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据