1 in 8 Men Will Be Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer During Their Lifetime.1
Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers diagnosed in men around the world.2 Previously, patients had to choose between definitive treatment options with unfavorable urological side effects.3,4 However, there’s another option: the NanoKnife System. This minimally invasive therapy precisely targets the prostate tumor with electrical pulses, destroying cells while helping to preserve sexual function and urinary continence.5
Advantages of the NanoKnife System
Fast and Efficent
An outpatient procedure that takes about an hour* and has a rapid recovery time.1
Safe and Effective
Helps preserve urinary control and erectile function with reliable destruction of targeted cells.1,7
Conserve Future Options
Procedures can be repeated if necessary and don’t interfere with other treatment options.8
How the NanoKnife System Works
The NanoKnife System uses electrical pulses delivered through thin needles to create openings in the walls of targeted prostate cells leading to their death.9 By preserving the other structures around the cells, it is more likely that urinary and erectile function will return.5,9
Identify the Tumor on MRI
Bracket the Tumor in Probes
Destroy the Cells with Electric Pulses
What to Expect in Your Procedure
If the NanoKnife System is right for you, then your doctor will provide you with detailed information related to your procedure.
BEFORE
- Outpatient procedure at ambulatory center or hospital.
- General anesthesia is administered for the duration of the procedure.10
- Patients have a catheter placed at the time of treatment.
DURING
- Thin, minimally invasive needles will be placed around the tumor.
- Electrical pulses are delivered between the needles, destroying the prostate tumor.
- The procedure typically lasts an hour, but the time may vary.6
Treatment time does not include patient prep, anesthesia initiation or recovery room time.
AFTER
- Post-procedure recovery will vary but expect a catheter to remain for a few days.
- Most symptoms are temporary. Speak with your doctor about when you can expect them to resolve.
- Follow-up visits will be conducted to confirm the effectiveness of treatment.
Frequently Asked Questions
What will it cost me?
Costs and insurance coverage can vary depending on your provider and plan. It’s important to consult you physician’s billing office with any coverage questions.
- If you have additional questions, you can contact the AngioDynamics Healthcare Economics Team at reimbursement@angiodynamics.com.
- Learn more about costs and coverage here.
What is focal therapy?
Focal therapy specifically targets prostate tumors as opposed to treating the entire gland.
How do I determine if the NanoKnife System is right for me?
Consult a specialist who has experience with the NanoKnife System. Ideal candidates have tumors visible in imaging that determine suitability for treatment.
Where is the NanoKnife System procedure performed?
Treatment can be performed at an ambulatory service center or a hospital. Consult with your doctor to decide which option is best for you.
How long is the procedure?
The procedure is typically an hour.1 Total time may vary based on your unique circumstances.
*Treatment time does not include patient prep, anesthesia initiation or recovery room time.
How long does the catheter stay in?
Typically, 4 days.1 Catheter duration may be longer based on patient circumstances.
How long will the side effects last?
Side effects typically last about 1-2 weeks.1 This may differ depending on patient-specific fators.
How will I know if the procedure was effective?
Regular follow-up visits with your doctor are essential. During these visits, they will review imaging results, blood test results, and any changes in symptoms to assess the effectiveness of the procedure. In some cases, your doctor may also recommend a follow-up biopsy to confirm how your prostate tissue has responded to the procedure.
1. van den Bos, W et al. “Histopathological Outcomes after Irreversible Electroporation for Prostate Cancer: Results of an Ablate and Resect Study.” The Journal of Urology vol. 196,2 (2016): 552-9. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.2977
2. https://www.wcrf.org/cancer-trends/prostate-cancer-statistics/#:~:text=Prostate%20cancer%20is%20the%204th,most%20common%20cancer%20in%20men.
3. Vernooij RW, Lancee M, Cleves A, Dahm P, Bangma CH, Aben KK. Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;6(6):CD006590. Published 2020 Jun 4. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006590.pub3
4. Biddle S. The psychological impact of active surveillance in men with prostate cancer: implications for nursing care. Br J Nurs. 2021;30(10):S30-S37. doi:10.12968/bjon.2021.30.10.S30
5. Scheltema MJ, Geboers B, Blazevski A, et al. Median 5-year outcomes of primary focal irreversible electroporation for localised prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2023;131 Suppl 4:6-13. doi:10.1111/bju.15946
6. Data on file – Pivotal Study of the NanoKnife System for the Ablation of Prostate Tissue (PRESERVE)
7. Blazevski A, Scheltema MJ, Yuen B, et al. Oncological and quality-of-life outcomes following focal irreversible electroporation as primary treatment for localised prostate cancer: A biopsy-monitored prospective cohort. European Urology Oncology. 2020;3(3):283-290. doi:10.1016/j.euo.2019.04.008
8. Van Riel LAMJG, Geboers B, Kabaktepe E, et al. Outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy after initial irreversible electroporation treatment for recurrent prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2022;130(5):611-618. doi:10.1111/bju.15759
9. Golberg A, Yarmush ML. Nonthermal irreversible electroporation: fundamentals, applications, and challenges. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2013;60(3):707-714. doi:10.1109/TBME.2013.2238672
10. Cussenot O and Stricker P. Irreversible electroporation for patients with localised prostate cancer: Expert opinion on this versatile therapeutic approach. EMJ Urol. 2021;9(1):56-62
11. Prabhakar P, Avudaiappan AP, Sandman M, et al. Irreversible electroporation as a focal therapy for localized prostate cancer: A systematic review. Indian J Urol. 2024;40(1):6-16. doi:10.4103/iju.iju_370_23