In contrast to pharmacological interventions that undergo rigorous clinical testing, recent technological advances in the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) have particularly been introduced and driven by economic incentives rather than high-quality clinical evidence. In this review we summarise the clinical and cost-effectiveness of new and emerging technologies for localised PCa. We emphasise particularly on robotic prostatectomy, new developments in radiotherapy, novel technologies in focal therapy such as cryosurgery and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) has similar oncologic outcomes to open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP); however, patients who undergo RALRP are more likely to have improved short-term potency rates. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and proton-beam therapy (PBT) have similar oncologic outcomes to external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT). IMRT has exhibited an improved gastrointestinal side effect profile compared to EBRT. PBT is not cost-effective compared to other radiotherapy modalities. Early studies of focal therapies in localised PCa have yielded positive results. Treatment decisions should be driven by cancer risk and patient preference rather than by financial incentives or availability of technology.
Office for National Statistics. Prostate cancer: The most common cancer among men in England – 2010.
2.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Prostate cancer. Diagnosis and treatment. CG58. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2008.
3.
Bill-AxelsonAHolmbergLFilénF. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer: The Scandinavian prostate cancer group-4 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst2008; 100: 1144–1154.
4.
HuJCGuXLipsitzSR. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA2009; 302: 1557–1564.
5.
FinkelsteinJEckersbergerESadriH. Open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: The European and US experience. Rev Urol2010; 12: 35–43.
6.
KordanYBarocasDAAltamarHO. Comparison of transfusion requirements between open and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int2010; 106: 1036–1040.
7.
BolenzCGuptaAHotzeT. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol2010; 57: 453–458.
8.
FicarraVNovaraGFracalanzaS. A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution. BJU Int2009; 104: 534–539.
9.
SmithJAJrChanRCChangSS. A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Urol2007; 178: 2385–2389; discussion 2389–2390.
10.
KrambeckAEDiMarcoDSRangelLJ. Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: A matched comparison of open retropubic and robot-assisted techniques. BJU Int2009; 103: 448–453.
11.
MenonMTewariABaizeB. Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: The Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology2002; 60: 864–868.
12.
MagheliAGonzalgoMLSuLM. Impact of surgical technique (open vs laparoscopic vs robotic-assisted) on pathological and biochemical outcomes following radical prostatectomy: An analysis using propensity score matching. BJU Int2011; 107: 1956–1962.
13.
BarocasDASalemSKordanY. Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: Comparison of short-term biochemical recurrence-free survival. J Urol2010; 183: 990–996.
14.
MastersonTAChengLBorisRS. Open vs. robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: A single surgeon and pathologist comparison of pathologic and oncologic outcomes. Urol Oncol2013; 31: 1043–1048.
15.
SooriakumaranPHaendlerLNybergT. Biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a European single-centre cohort with a minimum follow-up time of 5 years. Eur Urol2012; 62: 768–774.
16.
ChooMSChoiWSChoSY. Impact of prostate volume on oncological and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy: Robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open retropubic. Korean J Urol2013; 54: 15–21.
17.
TewariASrivasatavaAMenonM. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: Experience in one institution. BJU Int2003; 92: 205–210.
18.
SchroeckFRKrupskiTLSunL. Satisfaction and regret after open retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol2008; 54: 785–793.
19.
CloseARobertsonCRushtonS. Comparative cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of men with localised prostate cancer: A health technology assessment from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Eur Urol2013; 64: 361–369.
20.
SecinFPSavageCAbbouC. The learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: An international multicenter study. J Urol2010; 184: 2291–2296.
21.
GuedeaFAguiloFPoloA. Early biochemical outcomes following permanent interstitial brachytherapy as monotherapy in 1050 patients with clinical T1–T2 prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol2006; 80: 57–61.
22.
RoachM3rdHanksGThamesHJr. Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: Recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2006; 65: 965–974.
23.
KaoJCesarettiJAStoneNN. Update on prostate brachytherapy: Long-term outcomes and treatment-related morbidity. Curr Urol Rep2011; 12: 237–242.
24.
LaingRChadwickEJavedS. Low dose rate brachytherapy is an excellent treatment option for young men with localised prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol2012; 103 (Suppl 2): S93.
25.
ParkDSGongIHChoiDK. Radical prostatectomy versus high dose permanent prostate brachytherapy using iodine-125 seeds for patients with high risk prostate cancer: A matched cohort analysis. World J Urol2013; 31: 1511–1517.
26.
D’AmicoAVWhittingtonRMalkowiczSB. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA1998; 280: 969–974.
27.
RobinsonJWMoritzSFungT. Meta-analysis of rates of erectile function after treatment of localized prostate carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2002; 54: 1063–1068.
28.
ZelefskyMJHollisterTRabenA. Five-year biochemical outcome and toxicity with transperineal CT-planned permanent I-125 prostate implantation for patients with localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2000; 47: 1261–1266.
29.
SheetsNCGoldinGHMeyerAM. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy, proton therapy, or conformal radiation therapy and morbidity and disease control in localized prostate cancer. JAMA2012; 307: 1611–1620.
30.
CahlonOHuntMZelefskyMJ. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy: Supportive data for prostate cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol2008; 18: 48–57.
31.
KupelianPAReddyCACarlsonTP. Preliminary observations on biochemical relapse-free survival rates after short-course intensity-modulated radiotherapy (70 Gy at 2.5 Gy/fraction) for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2002; 53: 904–912.
32.
VoraSAWongWWSchildSE. Analysis of biochemical control and prognostic factors in patients treated with either low-dose three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2007; 68: 1053–1058.
33.
AizerAAYuJBColbergJW. Radical prostatectomy vs. intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the management of localized prostate adenocarcinoma. Radiother Oncol2009; 93: 185–191.
34.
ZelefskyMJChanHHuntM. Long-term outcome of high dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol2006; 176: 1415–1419.
35.
ZelefskyMJLevinEJHuntM. Incidence of late rectal and urinary toxicities after three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2008; 70: 1124–1129.
36.
EfstathiouJAGrayPJZietmanAL. Proton beam therapy and localised prostate cancer: Current status and controversies. Br J Cancer2013; 108: 1225–1230.
37.
CoenJJZietmanALRossiCJ. Comparison of high-dose proton radiotherapy and brachytherapy in localized prostate cancer: A case-matched analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2012; 82: e25–e31.
38.
KimSShenSMooreDF. Late gastrointestinal toxicities following radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol2011; 60: 908–916.
39.
YuJBSoulosPRHerrinJ. Proton versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: Patterns of care and early toxicity. J Natl Cancer Inst2013; 105: 25–32.
40.
KonskiASpeierWHanlonA. Is proton beam therapy cost effective in the treatment of adenocarcinoma of the prostate?J Clin Oncol2007; 25: 3603–3608.
41.
YongJHBecaJMcGowanT. Cost-effectiveness of intensity-modulated radiotherapy in prostate cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)2012; 24: 521–531.
42.
HummelSSimpsonELHemingwayP. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess2010; 14: 1–108, iii-iv.
43.
HayesJHOllendorfDAPearsonSD. Active surveillance compared with initial treatment for men with low-risk prostate cancer: A decision analysis. JAMA2010; 304: 2373–2380.
44.
KasivisvanathanVEmbertonMAhmedHU. Focal therapy for prostate cancer: Rationale and treatment opportunities. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)2013; 25: 461–473.
45.
AhmedHUHindleyRGDickinsonL. Focal therapy for localised unifocal and multifocal prostate cancer: A prospective development study. Lancet Oncol2012; 13: 622–632.
46.
MutoSYoshiiTSaitoK. Focal therapy with high-intensity-focused ultrasound in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol2008; 38: 192–199.
47.
GanzerRFritscheHMBrandtnerA. Fourteen-year oncological and functional outcomes of high-intensity focused ultrasound in localized prostate cancer. BJU Int2013; 112: 322–329.
48.
OnikGVaughanDLotenfoeR. The "male lumpectomy": Focal therapy for prostate cancer using cryoablation results in 48 patients with at least 2-year follow-up. Urol Oncol2008; 26: 500–505.
49.
BahnDde Castro AbreuALGillIS. Focal cryotherapy for clinically unilateral, low-intermediate risk prostate cancer in 73 men with a median follow-up of 3.7 years. Eur Urol2012; 62: 55–63.
50.
NguyenPLGuXLipsitzSR. Cost implications of the rapid adoption of newer technologies for treating prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol2011; 29: 1517–1524.
