Current role of focal therapy in prostate cancer

Abstract

Background:

Thanks to the improved accuracy of multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) to detect and localize the dominant index lesion on prostate cancer (PCa), the concept of minimally invasive focal treatments (FT) has gained popularity. Nevertheless, although high-quality evidence that FT has favorable functional outcomes, definitive proof of its oncological effectiveness compared to standard treatments remains underreported.

Objective:

This study aims to explore the efficacy, safety, oncologic and functional outcomes of different type of FT for PCa.

Evidence acquisition:

A non-systematic literature review was conducted by searching on PubMed “prostate cancer” AND “focal treatment” OR “HIFU” OR “irreversible electroporation” OR “cryoablation” OR “focal laser ablation.” Overall, 22 articles published in English literature from 2018 to 2023 describing FT techniques for PCa were included.

Evidence synthesis:

Related to the field ablated, focal therapies include hemiablation (half gland), focal ablation (zonal-base) or targeted therapy (lesion-based). FT modalities can be categorized in thermal and non-thermal energy: thermal energy techniques include high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), cryotherapy, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and focal laser ablation (FLA). Focal brachytherapy, irreversible electroporation (IRE), and vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy (VTP) are classified as non-thermal ablation. Each focal ablative treatments could be promising alternative to conventional radical therapies to treat PCa in term of mid-term oncologic and functional outcomes, however, limited data are available in comparison with standardized radical treatments. HIFU and Cryo are the most studied techniques and seem to be superior to radical treatments in term of functional outcomes despite associated with higher recurrence and retreatment rate.

Conclusions:

Current evidences of oncologic and functional outcomes of FT are based mainly on retrospective, non-comparative and single center studies. Thus, none of the focal therapies available should be considered safe alternative to standardized treatments in routine practice and should be offered only for well selected PCa patients with low or at least favorable-intermediate risk disease, unfit for radical options.