Effectiveness of Focal Therapy in Men With Prostate Cancer

Trial statusRecruiting
Trial phaseNot applicable
Trial typeInterventional
Biological sexMale
Age45+
SponsorRadboud University Medical Center

About this trial

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.

Eligibility criteria

This trial does not accept healthy volunteers

Qualifiers

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

Disqualifiers

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)

Trial design

Design model

Parallel

Treatments tested in this trial

  • Focal therapy

    Procedure/Surgery

    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

    Procedure/Surgery

    standard radical treatment; prostatectomy or radiotherapy with follow-up according international guidelines (PSA monitoring and imaging when indicated).

Treatment groups

356 Participants
are divided into 2 treatment groups
Group A: Focal therapyActive comparator 1 intervention
Group B: Usual careActive comparator 1 intervention

Trial outcomes

Primary outcomes

1

Oncological effectiveness (non-inferiority) defined as treatment failure

i.e. pathologically proven recurrent disease and/or the indication for retreatment with salvage treatment (RP, RT or systemic treatment or RT) in the focal therapy group and as biochemical recurrence and/or salvage treatment in the usual care group

Time frame
36 months
2

Quality of life (superiority) measured with Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate questionnaire

Compare quality of life between the two arms measured with the FACT-P questionnaire. FACT-P scores of the subscales vary between 0-24 and 0-28, the total score is between 0-156. The higher the score, the better.

Time frame
12 months

Secondary outcomes

1

Metastasis-free survival

Metastasis-free survival as a validated surrogate endpoint of overall survival, comparing the proportion of patients between the arms who are free from metastatic disease.

Time frame
at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months
2

Health-related quality of life using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire for prostate cancer

Compare quality of life measurements between the two arms using the EORTC QLQ-PR25 for sexual symptoms a higher score on the functional scales means a higher level of functioning, but on the symptomatic scales, a higher score means a greater severity of symptoms

Time frame
at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months
3

Health-related quality of life using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire

Quality of life measurements using the ICIQ-SF. Score ranges between1 and 21, a higher score means a greater severity of symptoms.

Time frame
at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months
4

Health-related quality of life regarding urinary symptoms using the International Prostate Symptom Score questionnaire

Compare quality of life measurements between the two arms using the IPSS The score ranges between 0 and 35, a higher score means a greater severity of symptoms

Time frame
at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months

Other outcomes

Sponsors and contacts

Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.

Radboud University Medical Center

Lead sponsor

Isala

Collaborator

Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc

Collaborator

St. Antionius Hospital

Collaborator

Hifu kliniek

Collaborator

Dutch National Health Care Institute

Collaborator

ZonMw: The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development

Collaborator

Nederlandse Vereniging voor Radiotherapie en Oncologie

Collaborator

Wetenschapscommissie interventieradiologie/Nederlandse vereniging voor interventieradiologie

Collaborator

Inspire2live

Collaborator

Prostaatkankerstichting

Collaborator

Nederlandse Vereniging voor Urologie

Collaborator