INTRODUCTION: Patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) face the difficult decision between a potential overtreatment by one of the standard therapies and active surveillance (AS) with the potential insecurity regarding cancer control. A focal therapy (FT) implies a treatment of the tumor within the prostate only. METHODS: This review evaluates the current literature and expert opinion of different therapies suited for FT as well as concepts for prostate imaging, biopsy and histopathological evaluation. RESULTS: Currently there is a lack of multicenter, randomized, prospective data on the effectiveness of FT. Nonetheless, the published data indicate a sufficient tumor control with a favorable side effect profile. There are still flaws in the diagnostics with regard to tumor detection and histological evaluation. Multicenter studies are currently recruiting worldwide which will provide new data with a higher level of evidence. CONCLUSION: At present, the effectiveness of FT should not be compared directly to standard radical therapies and FT should only be performed within studies. In cases of cancer progression after FT a salvage treatment should still be possible.
INTRODUCTION:Patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) face the difficult decision between a potential overtreatment by one of the standard therapies and active surveillance (AS) with the potential insecurity regarding cancer control. A focal therapy (FT) implies a treatment of the tumor within the prostate only. METHODS: This review evaluates the current literature and expert opinion of different therapies suited for FT as well as concepts for prostate imaging, biopsy and histopathological evaluation. RESULTS: Currently there is a lack of multicenter, randomized, prospective data on the effectiveness of FT. Nonetheless, the published data indicate a sufficient tumor control with a favorable side effect profile. There are still flaws in the diagnostics with regard to tumor detection and histological evaluation. Multicenter studies are currently recruiting worldwide which will provide new data with a higher level of evidence. CONCLUSION: At present, the effectiveness of FT should not be compared directly to standard radical therapies and FT should only be performed within studies. In cases of cancer progression after FT a salvage treatment should still be possible.
Authors: Hashim U Ahmed; Oguz Akin; Jonathan A Coleman; Sarah Crane; Mark Emberton; Larry Goldenberg; Hedvig Hricak; Mike W Kattan; John Kurhanewicz; Caroline M Moore; Chris Parker; Thomas J Polascik; Peter Scardino; Nicholas van As; Arnauld Villers Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Duke Bahn; Andre Luis de Castro Abreu; Inderbir S Gill; Andrew J Hung; Paul Silverman; Mitchell E Gross; Gary Lieskovsky; Osamu Ukimura Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-03-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: U Lindner; R A Weersink; M A Haider; M R Gertner; S R H Davidson; M Atri; B C Wilson; A Fenster; J Trachtenberg Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-08-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: C B Roberts; T L Jang; Yu-Hsuan Shao; S Kabadi; D F Moore; G L Lu-Yao Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2011-04-26 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Wennuan Liu; Sari Laitinen; Sofia Khan; Mauno Vihinen; Jeanne Kowalski; Guoqiang Yu; Li Chen; Charles M Ewing; Mario A Eisenberger; Michael A Carducci; William G Nelson; Srinivasan Yegnasubramanian; Jun Luo; Yue Wang; Jianfeng Xu; William B Isaacs; Tapio Visakorpi; G Steven Bova Journal: Nat Med Date: 2009-04-12 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: A Roosen; R Ganzer; B Hadaschik; J Köllermann; A Blana; T Henkel; A-B Liehr; D Baumunk; S Machtens; G Salomon; L Sentker; U Witsch; K U Köhrmann; M Schostak Journal: Urologe A Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: J J Wendler; R Ganzer; B Hadaschik; A Blana; T Henkel; K U Köhrmann; S Machtens; A Roosen; G Salomon; L Sentker; U Witzsch; H P Schlemmer; D Baumunk; J Köllermann; M Schostak; U B Liehr Journal: Urologe A Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 0.639