Ultrasound destroys 80 percent of prostate cancers in one-year study
newatlas.com
newatlas.com
# Baseline issues with prostate cancer that suck.
1. Don't treat a benign version and possibly live with trouble urinating and follow on problems from that.
2. Don't treat a malignant version and die
3. Treat it and potentially be impotent
4. Treat it and end up with bowel dysfunction
5. Treat it and rehab through surgical scars looking like an upside down T from following from belly-button to waistline or a U shape around the rectum.
6. Of course there is some tail risk of much much worse situations; and while it's worth remembering, it's not worth enumerating.
# TULSA method
So while this method is not different - it includes things that suck... if you read further upstream of the newatlas article to RSNA primary source [1] you will find that not only do they insert a spinning ultrasound device up the urethra - but it also includes a simultaneous insertion of an endorectal cooling device(ECD)[2]. Given all that: the parts that suck about this method pale in comparison to the traditional list of 6 above.
# Conclusion
There is much to be squeamish about with this method, as with any prostate remediation methodology; but if applied under careful care of patient and doctor - this looks like a very promising prostate treatment. And as a family friend once put it to me: "Welcome to the world of cancers; where pretty much everything sucks."
[1]: https://press.rsna.org/timssnet/media/pressreleases/14_pr_ta...
[2]: https://press.rsna.org/pressrelease/2019_resources/2129/fig_...
(edited for formatting)
https://www.hifu-prostate.com/
Hifu sends ultrasound from a curved emitter from outside the body in such a manner that the ultrasound ray will be focused on the treatment area. Thus, while you have ultrasound going through your body, only in the treatment area does it become high intensity enough to actually destroy tissue. This way they can burn off cancerous parts without damaging other parts of the prostate and the rest of the sensitive parts around there.
I am not sure why the new atlas did not mention HIFU, it also uses MRI.
HIFU is already cleared by the FDA, and it will become approved by medicare very soon (this coming January, I believe), so it will be paid by medicare and probably most insurance plans (as they tend to follow medicare).
Merry Christmas!
Went to China so my spouse could have a procedure done in 2014. HiFu took 1-2 hours and my wife walked away from the procedure. She was hiking the next day.
Tumor was shrinking almost immediately.
The alternatives we had were surgery that would have removed part of her abs or weekly treatments of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamoxifen
Neither of which was great.
Now we had to pay for the HiFu but it was soooo worth it. I think it was about $25,000 USD so very reasonable and affordable for us.
I understand 25 k USD feels reasonable if it saves your life without surgery and it's complications, but it steep for "just ultrasound". Do you know why it was that expensive?
The cost to the patient =! the actual cost of the procedure.
I would pay £0 for spending the night in the hospital even tho the cost of the trauma bed alone is £3200 per night according to NHS England.
I almost spewed my coffee. At McDonald’s. Thanks for making me get weird looks from other people. XD
But I'm wondering why a shrinking tumor is enough - usually we cut the whole thing out so that it doesn't metastasise or regrow from small leftover parts. If the beam kills most of it, is that enough? Does it trigger a mass die-off or stimulate our immune system to do the rest of the job? Just wondering what the explanation here is.
HIFU is "competing" with transurethral focused ultrasound (TUS). HIFU works, but has its limitations. Given that it's transrectal, it will not be able to deposit ultrasound energy only into the prostate; the rectum gets hit too. Furthermore, there's no temperature feedback during the procedure; the doctor will send ultrasound energy to the target area and use ultrasound imaging to gauge the efficacy.
It's a decent alternative, but it will never be as good as TUS at targeting just due to their inherent differences. But HIFU is available today, while TUS is not, and HIFU might be "good enough" for most people that it is more commercially successful.
The good news is that treatment has shrunk the tumors dramatically and he's mostly back to normal. The bad news is that he still has stage IV prostate cancer. It'd have been great to have had it caught earlier.
AMA.
Things like liver cancer you're probably better off just doing a surgery for, as you'll have more chance of getting it all, spotting metastasized offshoots, etc., and it's fairly accessible.
Thus, at least at our site, it was used to develop treatments for uterine fibroids, some types of breast cancer, and some types of brain cancer (using transcranial ultrasound, which is much harder to do because you have to go through bone and adjust for that medium). Generally, areas that you can reach from the skin and/or with a special probe, are potential treatment targets.
Lung cancers are hard to treat with ultrasound, for a few reasons. The biggest is that it moves, which makes it hell for the MRI and system as a whole to keep up without hitting unwanted areas. The other is that ultrasound doesn't travel well through air. For ultrasound ablation to work, you need a good conduction interface. That's why ultrasound technicians slather that clear gel on you when they're imaging you. It's possible to do in the lungs, just exceedingly difficult. It's unlikely that someone will commercialize something there.
The liver and kidneys won't be targeted either because the only way to reach them is by performing an incision. You might as well use other techniques like laparoscopy.
You'll note that it's measured in dB/(MHz-cm), and that soft tissue is 0.5, while bone is 6.9. Just like light, anytime ultrasound hits an interface, there are reflections and refractions. Furthermore, since bone attenuates ultrasound so much, you have to increase your amplitude greatly (and even more so with higher frequencies) in order to get enough thermal energy to be deposited at your target. If you don't do it right, you can create dangerous hotspots at the bone-tissue interface, and you can also deposit energy where you didn't intend to. Given that ultrasound therapy intends to be more precise than other techniques, you're kind of defeating the purpose!
Edit: in response to your edit, yes that's exactly what they do. They create an array of transmitters to be able to precisely target various locations within the skull. It wasn't my area of research, but I'm pretty sure they used them to create interference patterns as well, so many emitters were activated to work in concert to target one area.
See this image: https://sunnybrook.ca/uploads/1/_research/about/fus/3-ultras...
Transcranial ultrasound + monitoring via MRI. Requires a rock-solid transmitter clamped on the skull.
Put them in a coma
Lower their T to significantly decrease the matabolism
Fill their lungs with a liquid air solution (it’s a perfluorinate liquid that absorbs lots of O2. It works, but sucks)
Since CO2 isn’t soluble in fluorinated liquids. Intravenously remove the CO2 (hard, but you’ve lowered the metabolism rate)
Slowly circulate the fluid
Starts blasting away at the tumors.
https://www.uclahealth.org/fibroids/mr-guided-focused-ultras...
Thanks.
I'm always wary of reading too much into articles about promising medical developments, because it seems like often the headlines look great but they are actually referring to some relatively early stage of trials, so results of later trials might not be so good or even if they are it might still be a long time before the treatment is used routinely.
However, in this case, the article reads as if this is literally a cure for (one sort of) cancer, with an 80% success rate, which can be done as an outpatient procedure with a relatively low risk of complications. That seems like about 80% of the holy grail, at least in terms of treating prostate cancer specifically.
Can you give an expert perspective on how excited we should or shouldn't be about this result?
When I left my Masters in 2012, the clinical trials being done still resulted in a prostatetectomy. Meaning, these generous men donated their time to allow us to use them as guinea pigs, yet received no benefit since their prostates were removed anyway. That did allow us to perform in-depth pathology reports about the efficacy of the treatment.
This paper has 115 men that were treated and allowed to not have the surgery done, so this is the first time that we were able to see what the outcomes of the treatment truly are. Based on the results in the abstract, it looks like the hypothesis that men would be "cured" and have a better quality of life (i.e. no incontinence or sexual dysfunction) seems to be well-supported.
More of these trials will need to occur before it becomes approved as a viable alternative to surgery. The big benefit though is that even if the the treatment fails to kill all of the cancer, it probably kills enough of it that you can go back to a watchful waiting approach, keep monitoring PSA levels and symptoms, and if anything was missed, follow up with full surgery. That is, surgery can become the last-ditch approach vs. being the only approach.
And after a quick search it looks like there's some movement there: https://fusfoundation.org/diseases-and-conditions/urological...
@HorizonXP, any thoughts on this and it's potential to go mainstream? Asking for a friend...
Any focused ultrasound tech has potential to gain wide acceptance but it is mostly the imaging component (MRI guided in most cases) that hold it back due to costs and availability.
Pro: hair growth. Con: decimated libido.
Not every procedure lends well to alternative imaging modality (Brain surgery is one) but ultrasound guided FUS is really where there is potential to increase adoption.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3064817/
The "expensive thermometer" point is interesing. Cant we develop a cheaper one?
The (un)fortunate point of MRI thermometry is that is not only very effective at reading temperatures, but it can also produce thermal dosage maps that help in characterizing tissue leisioning (the exact response of HIFU ablated tissue is still be debated). On top of that you also get traditional MRI imaging essentially for free.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-25904-9
[2] https://www.fusfoundation.org/diseases-and-conditions/neurol...
It's less about the pain of the heat, and more about the discomfort of having probes in your genitals, and the requirement that you stay perfectly still.
1) Any idea on where to look to find out when this might become available? Looks like it was just cleared by FDA with 510(k) clearance.
2) My guess is that if you want this done - you would have to travel to UCLA? and Dr. Raman (or colleague) would perform the operation?
3) Is there anywhere to find a real discussion of down side risks with actual rates and figures?
For example, the RSNA article has a statement:
>"There were low rates of severe toxicity and no bowel complications."
4a) What does `severe toxicity` entail? 4b) Is that a operational complication that is remedied at the hospital and overcome in the short-term? or is that a long term quality of life issue?
5a) Furthermore what is this actual "low" rate? is it 2/115 or is more like 10/115? It looks like the base rate for these is perhaps around 3%-7% is how would I compare this study of 115 to something published like: [1]
Similarly RSNA states:
> "We saw very good results in the patients, with a dramatic reduction of over 90 percent in prostate volume and low rates of impotence with almost no incontinence" --Dr. Raman said.
5b) Where could I look to find the actual rates of each of these negative side effects? 5c) Or would you guess they are not published?
Okay, let’s say that there’s no money for the big pharma, what about governments with socialized health care? What about rich people and their loved ones who suffer from cancer?
The “not much money in this” aspect seems believable only when the condition is a rare one but cancer is a huge unsolved issue for everyone, including rich people and politicians. How can they not pursue cancer treatment option that’s not profitable enough for commercial players?
There is a lot of money to be made by big healthcare in any procedure in the US, including one as described by the article. Hospitals, admin, doctors, nurses, techs, medtech, they'll all be thrilled to ring the cash register instead of big pharma.
There’s no way one firm won’t pass up on a hundred million to save 50 firms from losing a billion.
The only time that happens is when BigCo gets the government to ban things, regulate the small firms out before they can even start selling stuff, or when the FDA drags its feet for a decade.
The fact the latter happens so often is one of the best reasons for public health insurance (IMO) because the US health industry is in many ways very far from a market where competition can efficiently account for stuff like this. But it’s not as bad to completely squeeze out whole new classes of treatments (new patented drugs is another story) which would be worse case scenario. Instead it tends to work through a million small rules but that only let the big guys exploit new stuff while potentially dragging their feet or charging 10x the cost, rather than completely excluding the market from it.
This doesn't stop things like surgery from being highly profitable. Pharmaceuticals are hardly the only way to make money in medicine.
I wish there was a chrome extension that could detect such cliches on discussion platforms and automatically hide the entire thread.
Ouch.
I'm wondering if it's just that the tool scrapes it out or something. As painful as it is to think about.
We had to go to the website to try and figure out how to classify the stuff with names like the above and 'colon snake' and not only did they sell these torture implements but they sold a variety of -caine local anesthetics.
Humans never cease to amaze and confuse me.
Are there any medically experienced people that know if this could be more likely to be a full "knock them out" kind of procedure?
That said, many cases are life threatening.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-prostate-cancer/untreated...
> Even without treatment, only a small minority of men diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer die from the disease, Swedish researchers reported Friday. Drawing from a national cancer register, they estimated that after 10 years prostate cancer would have killed less than three percent of these men.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
> Prostate cancer often has an indolent natural history, and patients are more likely to die with than to die from the disease. There is reliable evidence that PSA testing results in considerable overdiagnosis and overtreatment of men with prostate cancer, while associated potential harms include pain, fever, bleeding, infection, and transient urinary difficulties resulting from prostate biopsy, as well as erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, and bowel dysfunction.
> On May 22, after reviewing the evidence on both benefits and harms of PSA testing, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concluded that the reduction in prostate cancer mortality after PSA testing was very small and that the benefits did not outweigh the harms. Their recommendations are against PSA-based screening for the general US population of men at any age.
While statistically your statement may be true (in that a large number of people die of something else before the prostate cancer kills them) it's still a lethal cancer that kills more men each year than breast cancer kills women.
Another reason it's left untreated is that the surgery side effects are fairly serious.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Risk-Savvy-Make-Good-Decisions/dp/0...
I haven't read this paper, and it's been years since my Masters when I last kept up with this, but the patients at this stage are usually getting their prostates removed. The aggressiveness of the cancer is enough to threaten their life and well-being, so they elect for this procedure. It's usually followed up with radiation and chemotherapy to kill any residual tumour cells left behind, usually at the periphery, or if metastasis has occurred.
So great, prostate and cancer's gone, everyone's happy right? Well, no. The surgery damages a lot of the surrounding tissues, so these men are left with sexual dysfunction (which sucks but you can somewhat handle since you are living) and incontinence. The urinary and bowel issues affect your quality of life immensely. If you're in your 60s, you might have another 10-20 years to live with this. But if you're in your 40s, which is a lot of the cases for aggressive cancer types, you're stuck this way for many decades.
Hence why this ultrasound technique is so appealing because you can perform a minimally-invasive procedure that destroys only what you target, and spares the urethra and other tissues. Better outcomes, and better quality of life.
Given that the gold standard is surgery, this new technique has to prove itself against that, by showing that it is actually successfully destroying the cancer. That's why these clinical trials are occurring.
As an addendum, one study in Thailand looked at a sample size of dead men, and found that 1 in 7 had prostate cancer, but died of other causes. What that means is that many men get prostate cancer and may be asymptomatic because it is not aggressive. It can manifest as localized tumours/nodules within the prostate that you wouldn't be able to detect without good palpation and/or sensitive imaging. And because you're asymptomatic, you might not even seek diagnosis, and you'll probably die of other causes.
It also means that many men get diagnosed with cancer and may seek premature treatment. Most good doctors will recommend a watchful waiting approach; regular checkups and PSA level checks to ensure that you're still in the asymptomatic area. There's other treatments that can occur before surgery. But if you end up down this path, your cancer could be very localized within the prostate.
However, surgery is an all-or-nothing approach, there's no saving the prostate. Ultrasound ablation could be a good alternative and allow targeting. We're still far off from proving that though, but it's definitely viable. It's also why ultrasound ablation is being used for things like uterine fibroids, and breast cancer. There's even use cases for brain cancers.
It's a very cool technology, and I'm very optimistic for it. But I left my Masters in 2012, and we're still conducting these clinical trials. This is exactly the pace it should be occurring at, since it needs to be ironclad. But I found it too slow for my liking, so I moved on in my career path.
A little over a year ago I was diagnosed with cancer. I have had all my teeth removed, had a feeding tube (PEG) installed, chemo, liver biopsy, and more random horrible shit. I went from terrified of needles to getting more of them than I can count.
You adjust.
My teeth were not in the best shape going into this. But the risk was high that the radiation would kill my teeth and need to be removed anyway. The problem here is that I was going to be monumentally fucked from the radiation/chemo and they weren't sure my body could handle pulling teeth if they died.
And dead teeth just sitting in there could cause osteonecrosis of the jaw. Essentially a dead jaw. Then they would have to remove my jaw and that would be insane. So I opted to just have all my teeth pulled in one shot and get dentures later. And it wasn't some random dentist looking to profit saying I needed to have them pulled. Two ear, neck and throat doctors, a oral surgeon, two oncologists, and a radiologists all agreed that it was essential.
Wishing you the best in your recovery and life :)
My father died of cancer just before I turned 13 and he wasn't sick very long, over the course of a year or so he had a port installed, had a roughly horseshoe shaped and size scar on his scalp, had headgear bolted into his skull in multiple locations and the day we had to take him to the ER he had worked all day and by that night was effectively drowning in is own bodily fluids with his lungs mostly full of fluid at which point he went on a respirator, went unconscious and was taken off life support less than a week later.
Cancer sucks man, I'm sorry you got dealt that hand.
ED may be less of a concern with this group compared to other cancers or diseases. Not to mention the high rates of heart disease at that age in America already causing it.
Plus the rates must be compared to other modern prostate treatment options.
I'm so happy to see innovative and less invasive treatments for common diseases being approved.
I've often wondered why electromagnetic waves could not be focused on a tumor to destroy just it.