Table 2.
Participant’s responses to survey questions
| n (%) | |
|---|---|
| How beneficial is Focal therapy for CaP? (n = 421) | |
| No benefit at all | 63 (15) |
| Slightly beneficial | 144 (34.2) |
| Moderately beneficial | 130 (30.9) |
| Very beneficial | 68 (16.1) |
| Extremely beneficial | 16 (3.8) |
| Belief in “index lesion theory”? (n = 424) | |
| No | 232 (54.7) |
| Yes | 192 (45.3) |
| Use focal therapy for CaP? (n = 425) | |
| No | 322 (75.8) |
| Yes | 103 (24.2) |
| If no, reasons for not using focal therapy?a (n = 321) | |
| Index lesion theory is not established | 203 (63.2) |
| Lack of experience | 133 (41.4) |
| Lack of efficacy of focal therapy | 132 (41.1) |
| Lack of infrastructure | 115 (35.8) |
| Salvage treatment is challenging in case of recurrence | 73 (22.7) |
| Cost | 70 (21.8) |
| If yes, what set of prostate cancer patients are preferred?a (n =103) | |
| Unilateral low risk (Gleason score 6) | 68(66) |
| Bilateral low risk as long as urethra and one neurovascular bundle are preserved (Gleason score 6) | 27(26.2) |
| Unilateral intermediate risk (Gleason score 7) | 75(72.8) |
| Bilateral intermediate risk as long as urethra and one neurovascular bundle are preserved (Gleason score 7) | 11(10.7) |
| Unilateral high risk (Gleason score >7) | 22(21.4) |
| If yes, how are CaP focal therapy candidate identified? (n = 103) | |
| Based on systematic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy only | 11(10.7) |
| Multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) and systematic TRUS biopsy | 33(32) |
| Multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) followed by MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy | 33(32) |
| Template prostate mapping biopsies with or without Multiparametric MRI | 26(25.2) |
| If yes, what modality?a (n = 103) | |
| Cryoablation | 58(56.3) |
| High-intensity focal ultrasound (HIFU) | 46(44.7) |
| Electroporation | 13(12.6) |
| Laser ablation | 6(5.8) |
| Photodynamic therapy | 6(5.8) |
| Watervapor therapy | 0(0) |
| Brachytherapy | 2(1.9) |
| Radiofrequency | 1(1) |
| If yes, how many times per year? (n = 101) | |
| 1–5 patients per year | 54(53.5) |
| 5–10 patients per year | 14(13.9) |
| 10–15 patients per year | 18(17.8) |
| >15 patients per year | 15(14.9) |
| If yes, what complications are commonly encountered?a (n = 64) | |
| Urinary retention | 43(67.2) |
| Urethral stricture | 8(12.5) |
| Urinary incontinence | 6(9.4) |
| Erectile dysfunction | 18(28.1) |
| Rectal complications—perineal pain, rectal bleeding or rectourethral fistula | 6(9.4) |
| If yes, how do you follow-up a patient post focal therapy? (n = 102) | |
| Prostate-specific antigen/ PSA kinetics | 25(24.5) |
| mp-MRI followed by targeted biopsy only if there is a suspicious lesion | 31(30.4) |
| Protocol biopsy at set intervals with or without prior mp-MRI | 46(45.1) |
| If yes, do you attempt focal therapy for biopsy proven recurrent prostate cancer post focal therapy? (n = 101) | |
| Yes | 59(58.4) |
| No | 43(42.6) |
| Would use focal therapy more often if had access to a reliable and cost-effective way to perform focal therapy (n = 422) | |
| Yes | 244 (57.8) |
| No | 178 (42.2) |
| Believe that navigation tools and treatment planning tools can improve focal therapy outcomes? (n = 425) | |
| Yes | 223 (52.5) |
| No | 40 (9.4) |
| Maybe | 162 (38.1) |
CaP = prostate cancer.
a
Select all that apply question.