Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Making a case “for” focal therapy of the prostate in intermediate risk prostate cancer: current perspective and ongoing trials

  • Topic Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Focal therapy is growing as an alternative management options for men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Parallel to the increasing popularity of active surveillance (AS) as a treatment for low-risk disease, there has been an increased interest towards providing focal therapy for patients with intermediate-risk disease. Focal therapy can act as a logical “middle ground” in patients who seek treatment while minimizing potential side effects of definitive whole-gland treatment. The aim of the current review is to define the rationale of focal therapy in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer and highlight the importance of patient selection in focal therapy candidacy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Services USDoHaH. SEER Cancer Statistics Review 2018. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html

  2. Loeb S, Gonzalez CM, Roehl KA, Han M, Antenor JA, Yap RL et al (2006) Pathological characteristics of prostate cancer detected through prostate specific antigen based screening. J Urol 175(3 Pt 1):902–906

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62(3):405–417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pinsky PF, Parnes HL, Andriole G (2014) Mortality and complications after prostate biopsy in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer screening (PLCO) trial. BJU Int 113(2):254–259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Society AC (2019) Key Statistics for Prostate Cancer. Accessed Aug 1 2019 https://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostate-cancer/about/key-statistics.html

  6. Fossa SD, Wiklund F, Klepp O, Angelsen A, Solberg A, Damber JE et al (2016) Ten- and 15-yr prostate cancer-specific mortality in patients with nonmetastatic locally advanced or aggressive intermediate prostate cancer, randomized to lifelong endocrine treatment alone or combined with radiotherapy: final results of the scandinavian prostate cancer group-7. Eur Urol 70(4):684–691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Herget KA, Patel DP, Hanson HA, Sweeney C, Lowrance WT (2016) Recent decline in prostate cancer incidence in the United States, by age, stage, and Gleason score. Cancer Med 5(1):136–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ahmed HU (2009) The index lesion and the origin of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 361(17):1704–1706

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Liu W, Laitinen S, Khan S, Vihinen M, Kowalski J, Yu G et al (2009) Copy number analysis indicates monoclonal origin of lethal metastatic prostate cancer. Nat Med 15(5):559–565

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Stamey TA, McNeal JM, Wise AM, Clayton JL (2001) Secondary cancers in the prostate do not determine PSA biochemical failure in untreated men undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 39(Suppl 4):22–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. De Visschere PJ, Briganti A, Futterer JJ, Ghadjar P, Isbarn H, Massard C et al (2016) Role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in early detection of prostate cancer. Insights Imaging. 7(2):205–214

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Futterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, Emberton M, Giannarini G, Kirkham A et al (2015) Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 68(6):1045–1053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE, Lebastchi AH, Mehralivand S, Gomella PT et al (2020) MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 382(10):917–928

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Makarov DV, Bratt O, Bill-Axelson A, Stattin P (2015) Five-year nationwide follow-up study of active surveillance for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 67(2):233–238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wilt TJ, Jones KM, Barry MJ, Andriole GL, Culkin D, Wheeler T et al (2017) Follow-up of prostatectomy versus observation for early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 377(2):132–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, Taari K, Busch C, Nordling S et al (2018) Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in prostate cancer—29-year follow-up. N Engl J Med 379(24):2319–2329

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P et al (2016) 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375(15):1415–1424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bryant RJ, Oxley J, Young GJ, Lane JA, Metcalfe C, Davis M et al (2020) The ProtecT trial: analysis of the patient cohort, baseline risk stratification and disease progression. BJU Int 125(4):506–514

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA et al (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280(11):969–974

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rodrigues G, Warde P, Pickles T, Crook J, Brundage M, Souhami L et al (2012) Pre-treatment risk stratification of prostate cancer patients: a critical review. Can Urol Assoc J. 6(2):121–127

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Lane A, Metcalfe C, Young GJ, Peters TJ, Blazeby J, Avery KN et al (2016) Patient-reported outcomes in the ProtecT randomized trial of clinically localized prostate cancer treatments: study design, and baseline urinary, bowel and sexual function and quality of life. BJU Int 118(6):869–879

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. de Cerqueira MA, Laranja WW, Sanches BC, Monti CR, Reis LO (2015) Burden of focal cryoablation versus brachytherapy versus active surveillance in the treatment of very low-risk prostate cancer: a preliminary head-to-head comprehensive assessment. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 24(6):929–937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Blazevski A, Scheltema MJ, Yuen B, Masand N, Nguyen TV, Delprado W et al (2019) Oncological and quality-of-life outcomes following focal irreversible electroporation as primary treatment for localised prostate cancer: a biopsy-monitored prospective cohort. Eur Urol Oncol 3(3):283–290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Shah TT, Peters M, Eldred-Evans D, Miah S, Yap T, Faure-Walker NA et al (2019) Early-medium-term outcomes of primary focal cryotherapy to treat nonmetastatic clinically significant prostate cancer from a prospective multicentre registry. Eur Urol 76(1):98–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Walser ENA, Ynalvez L, Yong S, Aoughsten JS, Eyzaguirre EJ, Williams SB (2019) Focal laser ablation of prostate cancer: results in 120 patients with low- to intermediate-risk disease. J Vasc Interv Radiol 30(3):401–409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Moyer VA, Force USPST (2012) Screening for prostate cancer: u.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 157(2):120–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wilt TJ, Ahmed HU (2013) Prostate cancer screening and the management of clinically localized disease. BMJ 346:f325

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, Barry MJ, Aronson WJ, Fox S et al (2012) Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 367(3):203–213

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. de la Rosette J, Ahmed H, Barentsz J, Johansen TB, Brausi M, Emberton M et al (2010) Focal therapy in prostate cancer-report from a consensus panel. J Endourol 24(5):775–780

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Donaldson IA, Alonzi R, Barratt D, Barret E, Berge V, Bott S et al (2015) Focal therapy: patients, interventions, and outcomes–a report from a consensus meeting. Eur Urol 67(4):771–777

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis TE, McFadden ET et al (1982) Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 5(6):649–655

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Singh PB, Anele C, Dalton E, Barbouti O, Stevens D, Gurung P et al (2014) Prostate cancer tumour features on template prostate-mapping biopsies: implications for focal therapy. Eur Urol 66(1):12–19

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Tay KJ, Scheltema MJ, Ahmed HU, Barret E, Coleman JA, Dominguez-Escrig J et al (2017) Patient selection for prostate focal therapy in the era of active surveillance: an International Delphi Consensus Project. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 20(3):294–299

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mohler JL, Armstrong AJ, Bahnson RR, Boston B, Busby JE, D’Amico AV et al (2012) Prostate cancer, Version 3.2012: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 10(9):1081–1087

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Abreu AL, Peretsman S, Iwata A, Shakir A, Iwata T, Brooks J et al (2020) High intensity focused ultrasound hemigland ablation for prostate cancer: initial outcomes of a United States series. J Urol 204(4):741–747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Guillaumier S, Peters M, Arya M, Afzal N, Charman S, Dudderidge T et al (2018) A multicentre study of 5-year outcomes following focal therapy in treating clinically significant nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Eur Urol 74(4):422–429

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Valerio M, Cerantola Y, Eggener SE, Lepor H, Polascik TJ, Villers A et al (2017) New and established technology in focal ablation of the prostate: a systematic review. Eur Urol 71(1):17–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hamdy FC, Elliott D, le Conte S, Davies LC, Burns RM, Thomson C et al (2018) Partial ablation versus radical prostatectomy in intermediate-risk prostate cancer: the PART feasibility RCT. Health Technol Assess 22(52):1–96

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Linares Espinos E, Sanchez-Salas R, Sivaraman A, Perez-Reggeti JI, Barret E, Rozet F et al (2016) Minimally invasive salvage prostatectomy after primary radiation or ablation treatment. Urology 94:111–116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Marconi L, Stonier T, Tourinho-Barbosa R, Moore C, Ahmed HU, Cathelineau X et al (2019) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy after focal therapy: oncological, functional outcomes and predictors of recurrence. Eur Urol 76(1):27–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Nunes-Silva I, Barret E, Srougi V, Baghdadi M, Capogrosso P, Garcia-Barreras S et al (2017) Effect of prior focal therapy on perioperative, oncologic and functional outcomes of salvage robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol 198(5):1069–1076

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Thompson JE, Sridhar AN, Tan WS, Freeman A, Haider A, Allen C et al (2019) Pathological findings and magnetic resonance imaging concordance at salvage radical prostatectomy for local recurrence following partial ablation using high intensity focused ultrasound. J Urol 201(6):1134–1143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Herrera-Caceres JO, Nason GJ, Salgado-Sanmamed N, Goldberg H, Woon DTS, Chandrasekar T et al (2020) Salvage radical prostatectomy following focal therapy: functional and oncological outcomes. BJU Int 125(4):525–530

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wise AM, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Clayton JL (2002) Morphologic and clinical significance of multifocal prostate cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 60(2):264–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Lebastchi AH, George AK, Polascik TJ, Coleman J, de la Rosette J, Turkbey B et al (2020) Standardized nomenclature and surveillance methodologies after focal therapy and partial gland ablation for localized prostate cancer: an international multidisciplinary consensus. Eur Urol 78(3):371–378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline (2017). https://www.auanet.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer-clinically-localized-guideline

  47. Prostate Cancer (2018). https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/

  48. Ahmed HU, Dickinson L, Charman S, Weir S, McCartan N, Hindley RG et al (2015) Focal ablation targeted to the index lesion in multifocal localised prostate cancer: a prospective development study. Eur Urol 68(6):927–936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Eggener SE, Yousuf A, Watson S, Wang S, Oto A (2016) Phase II evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging guided focal laser ablation of prostate cancer. J Urol 196(6):1670–1675

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Gill IS, Azzouzi AR, Emberton M, Coleman JA, Coeytaux E, Scherz A et al (2018) Randomized trial of partial gland ablation with vascular targeted phototherapy versus active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer: extended followup and analyses of effectiveness. J Urol 200(4):786–793

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Mendez MH, Passoni NM, Pow-Sang J, Jones JS, Polascik TJ (2015) Comparison of outcomes between preoperatively potent men treated with focal versus whole gland cryotherapy in a matched population. J Endourol 29(10):1193–1198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Natarajan S, Raman S, Priester AM, Garritano J, Margolis DJ, Lieu P et al (2016) Focal laser ablation of prostate cancer: phase I clinical trial. J Urol 196(1):68–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Tay KJ, Polascik TJ, Elshafei A, Tsivian E, Jones JS (2017) Propensity score-matched comparison of partial to whole-gland cryotherapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer: an analysis of the cryo on-line data registry data. J Endourol 31(6):564–571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Valerio M, Shah TT, Shah P, McCartan N, Emberton M, Arya M et al (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion focal cryotherapy of the prostate: a prospective development study. Urol Oncol 35(4):150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. van den Bos W, Scheltema MJ, Siriwardana AR, Kalsbeek AMF, Thompson JE, Ting F et al (2018) Focal irreversible electroporation as primary treatment for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 121(5):716–724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. von Hardenberg J, Westhoff N, Baumunk D, Hausmann D, Martini T, Marx A et al (2018) Prostate cancer treatment by the latest focal HIFU device with MRI/TRUS-fusion control biopsies: a prospective evaluation. Urol Oncol 36(9):401

    Google Scholar 

  57. Karagiannis A, Varkarakis J (2019) Irreversible electroporation for the ablation of prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 20(10):63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Murat FJ, Poissonnier L, Pasticier G, Gelet A (2007) High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for prostate cancer. Cancer Control 14(3):244–249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Tay KJ, Polascik TJ (2016) Focal cryotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Arch Esp Urol 69(6):317–326

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Wang L, Yang H, Li B (2019) Photodynamic therapy for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate Int 7(3):83–90

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Wenger H, Yousuf A, Oto A, Eggener S (2014) Laser ablation as focal therapy for prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 24(3):236–240

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Fitch KBS, Aguilar MD et al (2001) The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method user’s manual. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica

    Google Scholar 

  63. Linstone HATM (1975) The Delphi Method: techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Boston

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was made possible through the NIH Medical Research Scholars Program, a public private partnership supported jointly by the NIH and contributions to the Foundation for the NIH from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Genentech, the American Association for Dental Research, the Colgate-Palmolive Company, and other private donors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Alex Z. Wang, Amir H. Lebastchi, Luke P. O’Connor, Michael Ahdoot, Nitin Yerram & Peter A. Pinto

  2. Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Sherif Mehralivand

  3. Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, NYU Langone Health, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA

    Samir S. Taneja

  4. Department of Urology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Arvin K. George

  5. Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris and Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France

    Rafael Sanchez-Salas

  6. Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

    John F. Ward

  7. Department of Urology, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Pilar Laguna & Jean de la Rosette

  8. 10 Center Dr; Building 10, Room 1-5950, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA

    Amir H. Lebastchi

Authors
  1. Alex Z. Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amir H. Lebastchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luke P. O’Connor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Ahdoot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sherif Mehralivand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nitin Yerram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Samir S. Taneja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Arvin K. George
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Rafael Sanchez-Salas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. John F. Ward
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Pilar Laguna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Jean de la Rosette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Peter A. Pinto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AZW: Project development, Manuscript writing/editing. AHL: Project development, Manuscript writing/editing. MA: Manuscript writing/editing. SM: Manuscript writing/editing. NY: Manuscript writing/editing. SST: Manuscript writing/editing. AKG: Manuscript writing/editing. RS-S: Manuscript writing/editing. JFW: Manuscript writing/editing. PL: Manuscript writing/editing. JR: Manuscript writing/editing. PAP: Manuscript writing/editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amir H. Lebastchi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

NIH and Philips have a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement. NIH has intellectual property in the field, including among other patents and patent applications, Patent: “System, methods, and instrumentation for image guided prostate treatment” US Patent number: 8948845, with inventor/author, PP. NIH and Philips (InVivo Inc) have a licensing agreement. NIH author PP receives royalties for a licensing agreement with Philips/InVivo Inc. NIH does not endorse or recommend any commercial products, processes, or services. The views and personal opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the US Government, nor reflect any official recommendation nor opinion of the NIH nor NCI.

Research involving human participants/animals

This manuscript is an opinion piece and therefore, did not involve human participants/animals.

Informed consent

Not applicable for this opinion piece.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, A.Z., Lebastchi, A.H., O’Connor, L.P. et al. Making a case “for” focal therapy of the prostate in intermediate risk prostate cancer: current perspective and ongoing trials. World J Urol 39, 729–739 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03525-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03525-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation