Unlock stock picks and a broker-level newsfeed that powers Wall Street.

Initial Perioperative Data from CAPTAIN Randomized Trial Demonstrate MRI-Guided TULSA Provides Statistically Significant Improvement of Post-Operative Experience Vs. Robotic Radical Prostatectomy

In This Article:

Profound Medical Corp.
Profound Medical Corp.

– First Level 1 study comparing an emerging technology head-to-head with RP in men with prostate cancer –

– TULSA had no blood loss and no overnight stay, along with reduced post-procedure pain, and more rapid recovery to baseline activities and overall health –

TORONTO, April 29, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Profound Medical Corp. (NASDAQ:PROF; TSX:PRN) (“Profound” or the “Company”), a commercial-stage medical device company that develops and markets customizable, AI-powered, incision-free therapies for the ablation of diseased tissue, is pleased to announce initial perioperative data from the Level 1 post-market CAPTAIN trial comparing the safety and efficacy of the TULSA procedure with radical prostatectomy (“RP”) in men with organ-confined, intermediate-risk, Gleason Score 7 (Grade Group 2 and 3) prostate cancer.

The positive perioperative results were presented yesterday by Xiaosong Meng, M.D., Ph.D., an Assistant Professor in the Department of Urology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, at the American Urological Association (“AUA”) Annual Meeting.

Starting in 2022, CAPTAIN patients were recruited at 20 sites in the United States, two in Canada and one in Europe. As of January 2025, 201 patients were randomized and, to-date, 194 have been treated or scheduled for treatment (69% TULSA, 31% RP). Baseline patient characteristics are balanced for TULSA vs RP, with median (IQR) age 63 (58-68) vs. 64 (59-68) years, proportions with PSA ≤10ng/mL 77% vs. 74%, and 23% vs 26% with PSA>10ng/mL. Proportions of TULSA vs. RP patients with GG2/3 disease were 76%/24% vs. 74%/26%. All patients were EPIC pad-free at baseline.

Dr. Meng’s AUA presentation highlighted that TULSA provided statistically significant improvement in all assessed perioperative measures:

  • Blood loss: TULSA median 0 (IQR 0-0) mL vs. RP 100 (100-200) mL, p<0.001.

  • Length of stay: TULSA median 0.29 (IQR 0.27-0.32) days vs. RP 1.24 (1.12-1.36) days, p<0.001.

  • NRS (Numeric Rating Scale) pain: Significantly lower post-operative pain after TULSA procedure vs. RP through to post-treatment day 6, p<0.05.

  • Patient-reported health-related QOL:

    • Significantly higher overall health on the EQ-5D-5L 0-100 VAS (Visual Analog Scale) after TULSA vs. RP for all 30 days measured after treatment, p<0.05.

    • During the first month post-treatment, significantly fewer TULSA patients reported experiencing extreme problems or inability with mobility (0% for TULSA vs. 12% for RP, p=0.001), self-care (3% for TULSA vs. 17% for RP, p=0.005), and usual activities (17% for TULSA vs. 40% for RP, p=0.008).