Effectiveness of Focal Therapy in Men With Prostate Cancer
NCT ID: NCT06223295
Last Updated: 2024-02-20
Study Results
Results pending
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
Recruitment Status
RECRUITING
Clinical Phase
NA
Total Enrollment
356 participants
Study Classification
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Start Date
2024-02-01
Study Completion Date
2031-02-28
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
In the Netherlands, most men with prostate cancer (PCa) are treated with radical whole-gland treatment, i.e. prostatectomy or radiotherapy. The burden of complications such as incontinence and erectile dysfunction associated with radical treatment is considerable. A recent systematic review by our group has shown that focal therapy of PCa seems to reduce the burden of treatment side-effects in men with intermediate-risk disease, maintaining their quality of life without compromising oncological effectiveness. The costs of side effects that can be prevented are estimated at €5456 per patient, resulting in total expected cost savings of about €22 million per year in The Netherlands. Furthermore, exploration of the benefit-risk balance under patients showed that they are willing to sacrifice some survival for an improvement in quality of life (QoL).
Focal therapy comprises a modern alternative to selectively treat a specific part of the prostate while preserving the rest of the gland. There is, however, a lack of high-quality evidence, and numerous papers therefore recommend to perform a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT). The RCT should have long-term follow-up, predefined assessment of cancer-specific and health-related QoL outcome measures, and economic evaluations to inform policymakers regarding cost-effectiveness. This RCT on focal therapy versus usual care is urgently needed to enable focal therapy to overgrow the experimental status, provide the evidence needed for guidelines, and make this available for selected patients who benefit from this strategy. Because of its promising results in other countries, focal therapy is increasingly requested by patients, but due to the lack of high-quality evidence, it is not reimbursed yet. This has been designated by both the PCa patient support group and physicians as a failure of both the market and the funding agencies. The investigators, therefore, aim to perform a high-quality multi-center RCT to provide the evidence needed to decide on reimbursement and implementation of focal therapy in patients with intermediate-risk, unilateral clinically localized PCa in the Netherlands.
Focal therapy comprises a modern alternative to selectively treat a specific part of the prostate while preserving the rest of the gland. There is, however, a lack of high-quality evidence, and numerous papers therefore recommend to perform a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT). The RCT should have long-term follow-up, predefined assessment of cancer-specific and health-related QoL outcome measures, and economic evaluations to inform policymakers regarding cost-effectiveness. This RCT on focal therapy versus usual care is urgently needed to enable focal therapy to overgrow the experimental status, provide the evidence needed for guidelines, and make this available for selected patients who benefit from this strategy. Because of its promising results in other countries, focal therapy is increasingly requested by patients, but due to the lack of high-quality evidence, it is not reimbursed yet. This has been designated by both the PCa patient support group and physicians as a failure of both the market and the funding agencies. The investigators, therefore, aim to perform a high-quality multi-center RCT to provide the evidence needed to decide on reimbursement and implementation of focal therapy in patients with intermediate-risk, unilateral clinically localized PCa in the Netherlands.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Transperineal Laser Ablation for Focal Treatment of Prostate Cancer
NCT04170478
Prostate Cancer
Focal Laser Ablation
Transperineal Laser Ablation
COMPLETED
NA
Focal Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer
NCT06270043
Prostate Cancer
RECRUITING
Intervention Trial Evaluating Focal Therapy Using High Intensity Focused Ultrasound for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer
NCT02265159
Prostate Cancer
UNKNOWN
PHASE2/PHASE3
Cancer of the Prostate Treated With Focal Implantation of a RadioactivE Source
NCT06080113
Prostate Cancer
ENROLLING_BY_INVITATION
NA
Focal Therapy With Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for Patients With a Single Prostate Tumor
NCT05616650
Prostatic Neoplasms
Prostate Cancer
Prostate Adenocarcinoma
RECRUITING
PHASE2
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
In the Netherlands, most men with PCa are treated with radical whole-gland treatment, i.e. prostatectomy or a form of radiotherapy. The burden of complications such as incontinence and erectile dysfunction associated with radical treatment is considerable.
A recent systematic review by our group has shown that focal therapy of PCa seems to reduce the burden of treatment side-effects in men with intermediate-risk disease, maintaining their quality of life without compromising oncological effectiveness. The costs of side-effects that can be prevented are estimated at €5456 per patient, resulting in total expected cost savings of about €22 million per year in The Netherlands. Furthermore, exploration of the benefit-risk balance under patients showed that they are willing to sacrifice some survival for an improvement in quality of life (QoL).
Focal therapy comprises a modern alternative to selectively treat a specific part of the prostate while preserving the rest of the gland. There is, however, a lack of high-quality evidence, and numerous papers therefore recommend to perform a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT). The RCT should have long-term follow-up, predefined assessment of cancer-specific and health-related QoL outcome measures, and economic evaluations to inform policymakers regarding cost-effectiveness. This RCT on focal therapy versus usual care is urgently needed to enable focal therapy to overgrow the experimental status, provide the evidence needed for guidelines, and make this available for selected patients who benefit from this strategy. Because of its promising results in other countries, focal therapy is increasingly requested by patients, but due to the lack of high-quality evidence, it is not reimbursed yet. This has been designated by both the PCa patient support group and physicians as a failure of both the market and the funding agencies.
At present, all devices that are used in the proposed study are CE approved and no safety issues were reported in IDEAL stage 1 and 2a studies. For high-risk PCa, local radical therapy has been found to significantly improve oncological endpoints. However, for low- and intermediate-risk localized PCa, the different recommended options by guidelines (radical prostatectomy (RP), radiotherapy (RT), or active surveillance (AS)) have similar short- to medium-term oncological outcomes in randomized studies. A PROZIB database search and a KWF report showed that about 65% of the intermediate-risk patients that are eligible for focal therapy currently undergo either RP or RT. Furthermore, brachytherapy is only used to a limited extent (7%) in intermediate-risk patients in the Netherlands, and since it is not offered as a treatment option in the participating hospitals in this proposal, the investigators do not include this option in our study.
Active surveillance is mainly used for low-risk patients rather than for the intermediate-risk patients the investigators are aiming for in this study. Our systematic review concluded that more high-quality evidence is required before focal therapy can become available as a standard treatment. The majority of focal therapy studies were prospective development IDEAL stage 2a studies (feasibility studies), showing the limited adverse impact on functional outcomes and favorable oncological outcomes. Overall, focal therapy studies reported a median of 95% pad-free at 1-year and 85% of the patients had no clinically significant cancer in the treated area, respectively. High-quality multi-center comparative clinical trials, however, appear to be lacking. The appropriate management of patients with recurrent PCa following focal therapy has been an ongoing point of discussion. Marra et al. showed that evidence from assessments of salvage treatments after focal therapy failure is low and is derived from four retrospective salvage series. Available salvage options after focal therapy include RP and RT. Overall oncological outcomes are acceptable, although biochemical recurrence is slightly higher compared to primary PCa treatment, probably because of the higher aggressiveness of recurrent/persistent PCa. Functional outcomes and complications are not markedly worse compared to primary treatment. Salvage RP and salvage RT, therefore, seem feasible treatment options with acceptable oncological control and functional outcomes. Thus, re-treatment with salvage radiotherapy or salvage surgery remains a clinical option after focal therapy failure. Experience from other countries and our qualitative research on this topic taught us that many patients will consciously opt for an initial focal therapy to maintain their quality of life and because they can be treated later when deemed necessary with the other options.
All patients included in our trial will undergo intensive follow-up. Patients undergoing focal therapy will undergo quarterly PSA measurement and yearly prostate MRI, followed by a prostate biopsy after 12 months and thereafter if indicated based on the MRI. Since focal therapy is a one-time intervention, there will be no patients left in treatment or that require alternative fallback treatments. Ablation devices can be returned after the completion of the trial. The disposables are single-use and are depreciated. There are no specific costs associated with the discontinuation of focal treatment after the trial.
The investigators, therefore, aim to perform a high-quality multi-center RCT to provide the evidence needed to decide on reimbursement and implementation of focal therapy in patients with intermediate-risk, unilateral clinically localized PCa in the Netherlands. This study is funded by a national grant (Veelbelovende Zorg) from the Dutch Health Institute (Zorginstituut Nederland).
A recent systematic review by our group has shown that focal therapy of PCa seems to reduce the burden of treatment side-effects in men with intermediate-risk disease, maintaining their quality of life without compromising oncological effectiveness. The costs of side-effects that can be prevented are estimated at €5456 per patient, resulting in total expected cost savings of about €22 million per year in The Netherlands. Furthermore, exploration of the benefit-risk balance under patients showed that they are willing to sacrifice some survival for an improvement in quality of life (QoL).
Focal therapy comprises a modern alternative to selectively treat a specific part of the prostate while preserving the rest of the gland. There is, however, a lack of high-quality evidence, and numerous papers therefore recommend to perform a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT). The RCT should have long-term follow-up, predefined assessment of cancer-specific and health-related QoL outcome measures, and economic evaluations to inform policymakers regarding cost-effectiveness. This RCT on focal therapy versus usual care is urgently needed to enable focal therapy to overgrow the experimental status, provide the evidence needed for guidelines, and make this available for selected patients who benefit from this strategy. Because of its promising results in other countries, focal therapy is increasingly requested by patients, but due to the lack of high-quality evidence, it is not reimbursed yet. This has been designated by both the PCa patient support group and physicians as a failure of both the market and the funding agencies.
At present, all devices that are used in the proposed study are CE approved and no safety issues were reported in IDEAL stage 1 and 2a studies. For high-risk PCa, local radical therapy has been found to significantly improve oncological endpoints. However, for low- and intermediate-risk localized PCa, the different recommended options by guidelines (radical prostatectomy (RP), radiotherapy (RT), or active surveillance (AS)) have similar short- to medium-term oncological outcomes in randomized studies. A PROZIB database search and a KWF report showed that about 65% of the intermediate-risk patients that are eligible for focal therapy currently undergo either RP or RT. Furthermore, brachytherapy is only used to a limited extent (7%) in intermediate-risk patients in the Netherlands, and since it is not offered as a treatment option in the participating hospitals in this proposal, the investigators do not include this option in our study.
Active surveillance is mainly used for low-risk patients rather than for the intermediate-risk patients the investigators are aiming for in this study. Our systematic review concluded that more high-quality evidence is required before focal therapy can become available as a standard treatment. The majority of focal therapy studies were prospective development IDEAL stage 2a studies (feasibility studies), showing the limited adverse impact on functional outcomes and favorable oncological outcomes. Overall, focal therapy studies reported a median of 95% pad-free at 1-year and 85% of the patients had no clinically significant cancer in the treated area, respectively. High-quality multi-center comparative clinical trials, however, appear to be lacking. The appropriate management of patients with recurrent PCa following focal therapy has been an ongoing point of discussion. Marra et al. showed that evidence from assessments of salvage treatments after focal therapy failure is low and is derived from four retrospective salvage series. Available salvage options after focal therapy include RP and RT. Overall oncological outcomes are acceptable, although biochemical recurrence is slightly higher compared to primary PCa treatment, probably because of the higher aggressiveness of recurrent/persistent PCa. Functional outcomes and complications are not markedly worse compared to primary treatment. Salvage RP and salvage RT, therefore, seem feasible treatment options with acceptable oncological control and functional outcomes. Thus, re-treatment with salvage radiotherapy or salvage surgery remains a clinical option after focal therapy failure. Experience from other countries and our qualitative research on this topic taught us that many patients will consciously opt for an initial focal therapy to maintain their quality of life and because they can be treated later when deemed necessary with the other options.
All patients included in our trial will undergo intensive follow-up. Patients undergoing focal therapy will undergo quarterly PSA measurement and yearly prostate MRI, followed by a prostate biopsy after 12 months and thereafter if indicated based on the MRI. Since focal therapy is a one-time intervention, there will be no patients left in treatment or that require alternative fallback treatments. Ablation devices can be returned after the completion of the trial. The disposables are single-use and are depreciated. There are no specific costs associated with the discontinuation of focal treatment after the trial.
The investigators, therefore, aim to perform a high-quality multi-center RCT to provide the evidence needed to decide on reimbursement and implementation of focal therapy in patients with intermediate-risk, unilateral clinically localized PCa in the Netherlands. This study is funded by a national grant (Veelbelovende Zorg) from the Dutch Health Institute (Zorginstituut Nederland).
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Prostate Cancer
Prostate Neoplasm
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Allocation Method
RANDOMIZED
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Primary Study Purpose
TREATMENT
Blinding Strategy
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Focal therapy
Patients in this group will receive focal therapy, i.e. TULSA, IRE or Hifu.
Group Type
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR
Focal therapy
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Focal therapy selectively treats a specific part of the prostate while preserving the rest of the gland in men with prostate cancer.
Focal therapy with ultrasound ablation (HIFU/TULSA) or irreversible electroporation (IRE) followed by an intensive MRI follow-up scheme at 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months, prostate biopsy at 12 months (and also when indicated) and PSA monitoring
Usual care
Patients in this group will receive usual care for prostate cancer, i.e. radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy
Group Type
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR
Usual care
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
standard radical treatment; prostatectomy or radiotherapy with follow-up according international guidelines (PSA monitoring and imaging when indicated).
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Focal therapy
Focal therapy selectively treats a specific part of the prostate while preserving the rest of the gland in men with prostate cancer.
Focal therapy with ultrasound ablation (HIFU/TULSA) or irreversible electroporation (IRE) followed by an intensive MRI follow-up scheme at 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months, prostate biopsy at 12 months (and also when indicated) and PSA monitoring
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Usual care
standard radical treatment; prostatectomy or radiotherapy with follow-up according international guidelines (PSA monitoring and imaging when indicated).
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
TULSA
IRE
Hifu
Radical prostatectomy
Radiotherapy
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Gleason score of 7 (3 + 4 or 4 + 3; ISUP grade 2/3)
* PSA level of ≤ 20 ng/ml
* Clinical stage ≤ T2b disease
* Life expectancy of ≥ 10 years
* Men with a prostate size ≤ 5 cm in sagittal length and ≤ 6 cm in axial length
* Fit, eligible, and normally destined for radical surgery or radiotherapy
* No concomitant cancer
* No previous treatment of their prostate
* An understanding of the Dutch language sufficient to receive written and verbal information about the trial, its consent process and the study questionnaires
* PSA level of ≤ 20 ng/ml
* Clinical stage ≤ T2b disease
* Life expectancy of ≥ 10 years
* Men with a prostate size ≤ 5 cm in sagittal length and ≤ 6 cm in axial length
* Fit, eligible, and normally destined for radical surgery or radiotherapy
* No concomitant cancer
* No previous treatment of their prostate
* An understanding of the Dutch language sufficient to receive written and verbal information about the trial, its consent process and the study questionnaires
Exclusion Criteria
* Unfit for general anesthesia or radical surgery
* Low volume low-risk disease (≤4mm Gleason score of ≤ 6 / ISUP grade 1)
* High-risk disease (Gleason score of ≥ 8 / ISUP grade \>3)
* Clinical T3 disease (extracapsular PCa)
* Men who have received previous active therapy for PCa.
* Men with evidence of extraprostatic disease.
* Men with an inability to tolerate a transrectal ultrasound.
* Cardiac pacemaker
* Metal implants/stents in the urethra or prostate.
* ASA ≥4
* Prostatic calcification/cysts that interfere with effective delivery of TULSA/HIFU based on MRCT.
* Men with renal impairment and a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of \< 30 ml/minute/1.73 m2.
* Unable to give consent to participate in the trial, as judged by the attending clinicians
* Low volume low-risk disease (≤4mm Gleason score of ≤ 6 / ISUP grade 1)
* High-risk disease (Gleason score of ≥ 8 / ISUP grade \>3)
* Clinical T3 disease (extracapsular PCa)
* Men who have received previous active therapy for PCa.
* Men with evidence of extraprostatic disease.
* Men with an inability to tolerate a transrectal ultrasound.
* Cardiac pacemaker
* Metal implants/stents in the urethra or prostate.
* ASA ≥4
* Prostatic calcification/cysts that interfere with effective delivery of TULSA/HIFU based on MRCT.
* Men with renal impairment and a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of \< 30 ml/minute/1.73 m2.
* Unable to give consent to participate in the trial, as judged by the attending clinicians
Minimum Eligible Age
45 Years
Eligible Sex
MALE
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Isala
OTHER
Sponsor Role
collaborator
Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc
OTHER
Sponsor Role
collaborator
St. Antionius Hospital
UNKNOWN
Sponsor Role
collaborator
Hifu kliniek
UNKNOWN
Sponsor Role
collaborator
Dutch National Health Care Institute
OTHER
Sponsor Role
collaborator
ZonMw: The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development
OTHER
Sponsor Role
collaborator
Nederlandse Vereniging voor Radiotherapie en Oncologie
UNKNOWN
Sponsor Role
collaborator
Wetenschapscommissie interventieradiologie/Nederlandse vereniging voor interventieradiologie
UNKNOWN
Sponsor Role
collaborator
Inspire2live
UNKNOWN
Sponsor Role
collaborator
Prostaatkankerstichting
UNKNOWN
Sponsor Role
collaborator
Nederlandse Vereniging voor Urologie
UNKNOWN
Sponsor Role
collaborator
Radboud University Medical Center
OTHER
Sponsor Role
lead
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Responsibility Role
SPONSOR
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Radboud University Medical Centre
Nijmegen, Gelderland, Netherlands
Site Status
RECRUITING
Hifu kliniek
Etten-Leur, North Brabant, Netherlands
Site Status
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Amsterdam UMC
Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
Site Status
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Isala klinieken
Zwolle, Overijssel, Netherlands
Site Status
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
St. Antonius hospital
Nieuwegein, Utrecht, Netherlands
Site Status
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Netherlands
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Haglind E, Carlsson S, Stranne J, Wallerstedt A, Wilderang U, Thorsteinsdottir T, Lagerkvist M, Damber JE, Bjartell A, Hugosson J, Wiklund P, Steineck G; LAPPRO steering committee. Urinary Incontinence and Erectile Dysfunction After Robotic Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy: A Prospective, Controlled, Nonrandomised Trial. Eur Urol. 2015 Aug;68(2):216-25. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.02.029. Epub 2015 Mar 12.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Hopstaken JS, Bomers JGR, Sedelaar MJP, Valerio M, Futterer JJ, Rovers MM. An Updated Systematic Review on Focal Therapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: What Has Changed over the Past 5 Years? Eur Urol. 2022 Jan;81(1):5-33. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.08.005. Epub 2021 Sep 4.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
de Bekker-Grob EW, Bliemer MC, Donkers B, Essink-Bot ML, Korfage IJ, Roobol MJ, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW. Patients' and urologists' preferences for prostate cancer treatment: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer. 2013 Aug 6;109(3):633-40. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.370. Epub 2013 Jul 16.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Watson V, McCartan N, Krucien N, Abu V, Ikenwilo D, Emberton M, Ahmed HU. Evaluating the Trade-Offs Men with Localized Prostate Cancer Make between the Risks and Benefits of Treatments: The COMPARE Study. J Urol. 2020 Aug;204(2):273-280. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000754. Epub 2020 Jan 22.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Blazevski A, Scheltema MJ, Yuen B, Masand N, Nguyen TV, Delprado W, Shnier R, Haynes AM, Cusick T, Thompson J, Stricker P. Oncological and Quality-of-life Outcomes Following Focal Irreversible Electroporation as Primary Treatment for Localised Prostate Cancer: A Biopsy-monitored Prospective Cohort. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020 Jun;3(3):283-290. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.04.008. Epub 2019 May 16.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Chin JL, Billia M, Relle J, Roethke MC, Popeneciu IV, Kuru TH, Hatiboglu G, Mueller-Wolf MB, Motsch J, Romagnoli C, Kassam Z, Harle CC, Hafron J, Nandalur KR, Chronik BA, Burtnyk M, Schlemmer HP, Pahernik S. Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Transurethral Ultrasound Ablation of Prostate Tissue in Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Phase 1 Clinical Trial. Eur Urol. 2016 Sep;70(3):447-55. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.029. Epub 2016 Jan 6.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Bonekamp D, Wolf MB, Roethke MC, Pahernik S, Hadaschik BA, Hatiboglu G, Kuru TH, Popeneciu IV, Chin JL, Billia M, Relle J, Hafron J, Nandalur KR, Staruch RM, Burtnyk M, Hohenfellner M, Schlemmer HP. Twelve-month prostate volume reduction after MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation of the prostate. Eur Radiol. 2019 Jan;29(1):299-308. doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5584-y. Epub 2018 Jun 25.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Ramsay E, Mougenot C, Staruch R, Boyes A, Kazem M, Bronskill M, Foster H, Sugar L, Haider M, Klotz L, Chopra R. Evaluation of Focal Ablation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Defined Prostate Cancer Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging Controlled Transurethral Ultrasound Therapy with Prostatectomy as the Reference Standard. J Urol. 2017 Jan;197(1):255-261. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.100. Epub 2016 Aug 18.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Marra G, Valerio M, Emberton M, Heidenreich A, Crook JM, Bossi A, Pisters LL. Salvage Local Treatments After Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019 Sep;2(5):526-538. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.03.008. Epub 2019 Apr 15.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Nathan A, Ng A, Mitra A, Sooriakumaran P, Davda R, Patel S, Fricker M, Kelly J, Shaw G, Rajan P, Sridhar A, Nathan S, Payne H. Comparative Effectiveness Analyses of Salvage Prostatectomy and Salvage Radiotherapy Outcomes Following Focal or Whole-Gland Ablative Therapy (High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound, Cryotherapy or Electroporation) for Localised Prostate Cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2022 Jan;34(1):e69-e78. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2021.10.012. Epub 2021 Nov 3.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Gharzai LA, Jiang R, Wallington D, Jones G, Birer S, Jairath N, Jaworski EM, McFarlane MR, Mahal BA, Nguyen PL, Sandler H, Morgan TM, Reichert ZR, Alumkal JJ, Mehra R, Kishan AU, Fizazi K, Halabi S, Schaeffer EM, Feng FY, Elliott D, Dess RT, Jackson WC, Schipper MJ, Spratt DE. Intermediate clinical endpoints for surrogacy in localised prostate cancer: an aggregate meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Mar;22(3):402-410. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30730-0.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Skolarus TA, Dunn RL, Sanda MG, Chang P, Greenfield TK, Litwin MS, Wei JT; PROSTQA Consortium. Minimally important difference for the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form. Urology. 2015 Jan;85(1):101-5. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.08.044.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Tay KJ, Scheltema MJ, Ahmed HU, Barret E, Coleman JA, Dominguez-Escrig J, Ghai S, Huang J, Jones JS, Klotz LH, Robertson CN, Sanchez-Salas R, Scionti S, Sivaraman A, de la Rosette J, Polascik TJ. Patient selection for prostate focal therapy in the era of active surveillance: an International Delphi Consensus Project. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017 Sep;20(3):294-299. doi: 10.1038/pcan.2017.8. Epub 2017 Mar 28.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Cella D, Nichol MB, Eton D, Nelson JB, Mulani P. Estimating clinically meaningful changes for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy--Prostate: results from a clinical trial of patients with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Value Health. 2009 Jan-Feb;12(1):124-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00409.x. Epub 2008 Jul 18.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
2023-16261
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
Focal Brachytherapy in Patients With Selected "Low-risk" Prostate Cancer - a Phase-II-trial
NCT02391051
RECRUITING
PHASE2
HDR Focal: Feasibility Study
NCT02918253
RECRUITING
NA
Phase II Trial of Focal Cryotherapy for Prostate Cancer
NCT04138914
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
NA
Assessing the Potential for Reduced Toxicity Using Focal Brachytherapy in Early Stage, Low Volume Prostate Cancer
NCT01354951
TERMINATED
PHASE2
MR-guided Focal Laser Ablation of the Prostate
NCT02200809
COMPLETED
NA
Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer
NCT01802307
WITHDRAWN
PHASE2
Ablative Therapy in the Management of Prostate Cancer
NCT03492424
RECRUITING
Micro-wave Ablation Under Organ-based Tracking in Patients With Prostate Cancer - FOSTINE
NCT04831905
UNKNOWN
NA
Towards Optimal Treatment for High Risk Prostate Cancer
NCT06204341
RECRUITING
NA
High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation in Treating Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer
NCT00561314
COMPLETED
PHASE2
Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer - A Pilot Study of Focal Low Dose Rate Brachytherapy
NCT01830166
UNKNOWN
NA
Hypofractionated Focal Lesion Ablative Microboost in prostatE Cancer 2.0
NCT04045717
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
PHASE2
Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy in Prostate Cancer
NCT01764646
UNKNOWN
NA
Image-guided Focal Dose Escalation- Primary pc Treated With Primary External Beam Hypofract.Stereotactic rt
NCT06330909
RECRUITING
NA
Utrecht Prostate Cohort for Cancer Treatment Intervention Studies and Long-term Evaluation
NCT04228211
RECRUITING
Focal Prostate Radiofrequency Ablation
NCT02294903
UNKNOWN
NA
High Dose-Rate Brachytherapy and/or Intensity Modulated External Beam Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer
NCT00243321
COMPLETED
NA
Focal Prostate Imaging With CLE and OCT
NCT03253458
UNKNOWN
NA
Innovative Planning and Guidance System for Prostate Focal Brachytherapy
NCT03160365
COMPLETED
NA
Hypofractionated Proton Beam Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer
NCT01950351
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
PHASE1/PHASE2
Two-Fraction Ultrahypofractionated Radiotherapy With Focal Boost for Intermediate Risk, Localized Prostate Cancer
NCT06518226
RECRUITING
NA
MRI-guided Focal Laser Ablation Prostate Cancer
NCT05370482
UNKNOWN
NA
Focal Ablation With Focal Cryotherapy or HIFU for the Treatment of Men With Localized Prostate Cancer
NCT06178354
RECRUITING
NA
HRQOL in Prostate Cancer Patients Treated With Radiotherapy
NCT05645237
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
Stereotactic Focal Radiotherapy as an Alternative Treatment to Active Surveillance for Low and Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer
NCT07152067
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
PHASE2