Prostat Kanserinde Fokal Laser Ablasyon
Özet
Prostat kanserinin tedavisinde radikal cerrahi ve radyoterapinin yol açtığı erektil disfonksiyon ile inkontinans gibi yaşam kalitesini olumsuz etkileyen yan etkileri en aza indirmeyi amaçlayan fokal lazer ablasyonu (FLA) yöntemi, ürolojide yenilikçi bir yaklaşım sunmaktadır. Günümüzde multiparametrik manyetik rezonans görüntüleme (MR) teknolojisindeki ilerlemeler, tümörün prostat içerisindeki lokalizasyonunun güvenilir biçimde tespit edilmesini sağlayarak fokal tedavilerin önünü açmıştır. Dokunun lazer enerjisiyle termal hasara uğratılması prensibine dayanan FLA; HIFU ve kriyoterapi gibi alternatiflerine kıyasla prostatın her bölgesine uygulanabilmesi, daha keskin ablasyon sınırları oluşturması, lokal anesteziyle günübirlik gerçekleştirilebilmesi ve düşük maliyetiyle öne çıkmaktadır. Klinik araştırmalar ve prospektif çalışmalar, FLA uygulamasının cinsel fonksiyonları ve kontinansı korumada yüksek başarı gösterdiğini, ciddi yan etki oranlarının son derece düşük olduğunu doğrulamaktadır. Her ne kadar SEER veri tabanına dayalı bazı retrospektif analizlerde radikal prostatektomi ve radyoterapiye kıyasla genel sağkalım oranları daha düşük bulunmuş ve bu çalışmalar metodolojik açıdan eleştirilmiş olsa da, yöntemin en büyük kısıtlılığı uzun dönemli onkolojik sonuçlara dair verilerin henüz yetersiz olmasıdır. Gelişen füzyon ve navigasyon yazılımlarıyla desteklenen FLA, gelecekte seçilmiş hasta grupları için güçlü bir tedavi seçeneği olma potansiyelini korumaktadır.
Focal laser ablation (FLA) in prostate cancer management presents an innovative approach developed to minimize quality-of-life side effects like erectile dysfunction and incontinence caused by radical surgery and radiotherapy. Recent advancements in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) have enabled reliable tumor localization, paving the way for targeted focal interventions. Operating on the principle of inducing irreversible thermal tissue damage using laser energy, FLA offers distinct advantages over competitors like HIFU and cryotherapy, including the ability to target any prostate zone, achieve sharper ablation margins, and be performed as an outpatient procedure under local anesthesia. Clinical data and prospective trials demonstrate that FLA is highly successful in preserving potency and continence with minimal severe complications. Although some retrospective analyses using the SEER database reported lower overall survival rates for FLA compared to radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy—sparking methodological criticisms—the primary limitation of the procedure remains the scarcity of long-term oncological outcomes. Supported by evolving fusion and real-time monitoring navigation software, FLA maintains a high potential to become a robust treatment alternative for carefully selected patient populations.
Referanslar
Pinsky PF, Parnes HL, Andriole G. Mortality and complications after prostate biopsy in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening (PLCO) trial. BJU Int. 2014;113: 254–9.
Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62: 405–17.
Ficarra V, Sooriakumaran P, Novara G, et al. Systematic review of methods for reporting combined outcomes after radical prostatectomy and proposal of a novel system: the survival, continence, and potency (SCP) classification. Eur Urol. 2012;61: 541–8.
Kearns JT, Holt SK, Wright JL, et al. PSA screening, prostate biopsy, and treatment of prostate cancer in the years surrounding the USPSTF recommendation against prostate cancer screening. Cancer. 2018;124: 2733–9.
Walsh PC. Radical retropubic prostatectomy with reduced morbidity: an anatomic approach. NCI Monogr. 1988;7: 133–7.
Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62: 431–52.
Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62: 418–30.
Wallis CJ, Glaser A, Hu JC, et al. Survival and complications following surgery and radiation for localized prostate cancer: an international collaborative review. Eur Urol. 2018;73: 11–20.
Schauer I, Keller E, Muller A, Madersbacher S. Have rates of erectile dysfunction improved within the past 17 years after radical prostatectomy? A systematic analysis of the control arms of prospective randomized trials on penile rehabilitation. Andrology. 2015; 3: 661–5.
Futterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, et al. Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2015;68: 1045–53.
Borofsky S, George AK, Gaur S, et al. What are we missing? False-negative cancers at multiparametric MR imaging of the prostate. Radiology. 2018;286: 186–95.
Cordeiro ER, Cathelineau X, Thuroff S, et al. High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for definitive treatment of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2012;110: 1228–42.
Natarajan S, Jones TA, Priester AM, et al. Focal laser ablation of prostate cancer: feasibility of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion for guidance. J Urol. 2017;198: 839–47.
Knappe V, Frank F, Rohde E. Principles of lasers and biophotonic effects. Photomed Laser Surg. 2004;22: 411–7.
McGuff PE, Bushnell D, Soroff HS, Deterling RA Jr. Studies of the surgical applications of laser (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation). Surg Forum. 1963;14: 143–5.
McGuff PE, Deterling RA Jr, Gottlieb LS, et al. Laser surgery of malignant tumors. Dis Chest.1965; 48: 130–9.
McGuff PE, Deterling RA Jr, Gottlieb LS, et al. The laser treatment of experimental malignant tumours. Can Med Assoc J. 1964;91: 1089–95.
Helsper JT, Sharp GS, Williams HF, Fister HW. The biological effect of laser energy on human melanoma. Cancer. 1964;17: 1299–304.
Johnson FM, Olson R, Rounds DE. Effects of high-power green laser radiation on cells in tissue culture. Nature.1964; 205: 721–2.
Johnson DE, Cromeens DM, Price RE. Interstitial laser prostatectomy. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine. 1994;14: 299–305.
Amin Z, Lees WR, Bown SG. Technical note: interstitial laser photocoagulation for the treatment of prostatic cancer. British Journal of Radiology. 1993;66: 1044–7.
Carpentier A, McNichols RJ, Stafford RJ, et al. Real-time magnetic resonance-guided laser thermal therapy for focal metastatic brain tumors. Neurosurgery.2008;63: 21–8.
Peters RD, Chan E, Trachtenberg J, et al. Magnetic resonance thermometry for predicting thermal damage: an application of interstitial laser coagulation in an in vivo canine prostate model. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.2000;44: 873–83.
van Nimwegen SA, L’Eplattenier HF, Rem AI, et al. Nd : YAG surgical laser effects in canine prostate tissue: temperature and damage distribution. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2009;54: 29–44.
Bhowmick S, Swanlund DJ, Coad JE, et al. Evaluation of thermal therapy in a prostate cancer model using a wet electrode radiofrequency probe. J Endourol. 2001;15:629–40.
Colin P, Nevoux P, Marqa M, et al. Focal laser interstitial thermotherapy (LITT) at 980 nm for prostate cancer: treatment feasibility in Dunning R3327-AT2 rat prostate tumour. BJUI. 2011;109-3: 452–8.
Atri M, Gertner MR, Haider MA, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for realtime monitoring of interstitial laser thermal therapy in the focal treatment of prostate cancer. Canadian Urological Association Journal. 2009;3: 125–30.
Fuentes D, Oden JT, Diller KR, et al. Computational modeling and real-time control of patient-specific laser treatment of cancer. Annals of Biomedical Engineering. 2009;37: 763–82.
Stafford RJ, Shetty A, Elliott AM, et al. Magnetic resonance guided, focal laser induced interstitial thermal therapy in a canine prostate model. J Urol. 2010;184: 1514-20.
Raz O, Haider MA, Davidson SR, et al. Real-time magnetic resonance imaging-guided focal laser therapy in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2010;58: 173–7.
Lindner U, Louis AS, Colquhoun AJ, et al. First robotic magnetic resonance-guided laser focal therapy for prostate cancer: a case report and review of the literature. Interventional Oncology Society Journal. 2011;1: 69–77.
Valerio M, Cerantola Y, Eggener SE, et al. New and Established Technology in Focal Ablation of the Prostate: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol. 2017;71: 17-34.
Eggener SE, Yousuf A, Watson S, et al. Phase II evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging guided focal laser ablation of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2016;196: 1670–5.
Feller J, Greenwood B, Jones W, et al. Mp30-02 transrectally delivered, outpatient MRI-guided laser focal therapy of prostate cancer: seven year interim results of NCT #02243033. J Urol. 2018;199: 374–5.
Zheng X, Jin K, Qiu S, et al. Focal laser ablation versus radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: survival outcomes from a matched cohort. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019;17, 464–9.
Zhou X, Jin K, Qiu S, et al. Comparative effectiveness of radiotherapy versus focal laser ablation in patients with low and intermediate risk localized prostate cancer. Sci Rep. 2020;10: 1–8.
Bates AS, Ayers J, Kostakopoulos N, et al. A Systematic Review of Focal Ablative Therapy for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer in Comparison with Standard Management Options: Limitations of the Available Evidence and Recommendations for Clinical Practice and Further Research. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4: 405-23.
