Complications, oncological and functional outcomes of salvage treatment options following focal therapy for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and a comprehensive narrative review

A Novel Nomogram to Identify Candidates for Focal Therapy Among Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer Diagnosed via Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted and Systematic Biopsies: A European Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Suitable selection criteria for focal therapy (FT) are crucial to achieve success in localized prostate cancer (PCa).

OBJECTIVE

To develop a multivariable model that better delineates eligibility for FT and reduces undertreatment by predicting unfavorable disease at radical prostatectomy (RP).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Data were retrospectively collected from a prospective European multicenter cohort of 767 patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted and systematic biopsies followed by RP in eight referral centers between 2016 and 2021. The Imperial College of London eligibility criteria for FT were applied: (1) unifocal MRI lesion with Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score of 3-5; (2) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤20 ng/ml; (3) cT2-3a stage on MRI; and (4) International Society of Urological Pathology grade group (GG) 1 and ≥6 mm or GG 2-3. A total of 334 patients were included in the final analysis.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was unfavorable disease at RP, defined as GG ≥4, and/or lymph node invasion, and/or seminal vesicle invasion, and/or contralateral clinically significant PCa. Logistic regression was used to assess predictors of unfavorable disease. The performance of the models including clinical, MRI, and biopsy information was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration plots, and decision curve analysis. A coefficient-based nomogram was developed and internally validated.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Overall, 43 patients (13%) had unfavorable disease on RP pathology. The model including PSA, clinical stage on digital rectal examination, and maximum lesion diameter on MRI had an AUC of 73% on internal validation and formed the basis of the nomogram. Addition of other MRI or biopsy information did not significantly improve the model performance. Using a cutoff of 25%, the proportion of patients eligible for FT was 89% at the cost of missing 30 patients (10%) with unfavorable disease. External validation is required before the nomogram can be used in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

We report the first nomogram that improves selection criteria for FT and limits the risk of undertreatment.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We conducted a study to develop a better way of selecting patients for focal therapy for localized prostate cancer. A novel predictive tool was developed using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level measured before biopsy, tumor stage assessed via digital rectal examination, and lesion size on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. This tool improves the prediction of unfavorable disease and may reduce the risk of undertreatment of localized prostate cancer when using focal therapy.

Salvage Radical Prostatectomy after Primary Focal Ablative Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

CONTEXT

Focal therapy (FT) has been gaining popularity as a treatment option for localized intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) due to the associated lower morbidity compared to whole-gland treatment. However, there is an increased risk of local cancer recurrence requiring subsequent treatment in a small proportion of patients.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to better describe and analyze patient postoperative, oncologic, and functional outcomes for those who underwent salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) to manage their primary FT failure.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was completed using three databases (PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL) from October to December 2021 to identify data on outcomes in patients who received sRP for cancer recurrence after prior focal treatment.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

12 articles (482 patients) were included. Median time to sRP was 24 months. Median follow-up time was 27 months. A meta-analysis revealed a postoperative complication rate of 15% (95% CI: 0.09, 0.24), with 4.6% meeting criteria for a major complication Clavien (CG) grade ≥3. Severe GU toxicity was seen in 3.6% of the patients, and no patients had severe GI toxicity. Positive surgical margins (PSM) were found in 27% (95% CI: 0.19, 0.37). Biochemical recurrence (BCR) after sRP occurred in 23% (95% CI: 0.17, 0.30), indicating a BCR-free probability of 77% at 2 years. Continence (pad-free) and potency (ability to have penetrative sex) were maintained in 67% (95% CI: 0.53, 0.78) and 37% (95% CI: 0.18, 0.62) at 12 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our evidence shows acceptable complication rates and oncologic outcomes; however, with suboptimal functional outcomes for patients undergoing sRP for recurrent PCa after prior FT. Inferior outcomes were observed for salvage treatment compared to primary radical prostatectomy (pRP). More high-quality studies are needed to better characterize outcomes after this sequence of PCa treatments.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We looked at treatment outcomes and toxicity for men treated with sRP for prior FT failure. We conclude that these patients will have significant detriment to genitourinary function, with outcomes being worse than those for pRP patients.

Stereotactic focal radiotherapy as an alternative treatment for low-risk prostate cancer: Results of a single-arm monocenter Phase-II trial

Introduction

Since radical treatments in low risk prostate cancer do not improve overall survival in comparison to active surveillance, preserving quality of life (QOL) remains the key objective. Active surveillance of indolent prostate cancer avoids curative treatment side-effects but necessitates repeated biopsies. Focal stereotactic body radiation therapy (focal SBRT) may be an alternative. This non-randomized Phase-II trial examined the feasibility and safety of focal SBRT for low and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Methods

Patients were recruited in 2016–2019 if they had: localized CAPRA ≤ 3 prostate adenocarcinoma; an isolated PIRADS≥4 macroscopic tumor on MRI; WHO Performance Status 0-1; and no major urinary symptoms. 36.25 Gy (80% isodose prescription) were delivered in 5 fractions every other day. Primary outcome was delay between focal SBRT and salvage-treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes were: acute/late genitourinary/rectal toxicity; biological, clinical and MRI local control; and change in QOL measures.

Results

Over a median follow-up of 36 months, salvage prostatectomy in the 24 eligible patients was never required. Three-year biochemical progression-free survival was 96%. The single biochemical recurrence was a small (2-mm) Gleason 6 (3 + 3) lesion in the non-irradiated lobe. All 19 patients with ≥1 post-treatment MRI evaluations demonstrated complete radiological response. Acute/late grade ≥3 toxicities did not occur: all acute toxicities were grade-1 genitourinary (38% patients), grade-2 genitourinary (8%), or grade-1 rectal (13%) toxicities. There was one (4%) late grade-1 genitourinary toxicity. QOL was unchanged at last follow-up, as shown by IPSS (2.86 to 3.29, p>0.05), U-QOL (0.71 to 0.67, p>0.05), and IIEF5 (the 14 initially potent patients maintained potency (IIEF5 > 16)).

Conclusion

Focal SBRT is feasible, well-tolerated, and preserves QOL. This innovative robotized approach challenges active surveillance.

Cryotherapy for partial gland ablation of prostate cancer: Oncologic and safety outcomes

BACKGROUND

Partial gland ablation (PGA) is a new option for treatment of prostate cancer (PCa). Cryotherapy, an early method of PGA, has had favorable evaluations, but few studies have employed a strict protocol using biopsy endpoints in men with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).

METHODS

143 men with unilateral csPCa were enrolled in a prospective, observational trial of outpatient PGA-cryotherapy. Treatment was a 2-cycle freeze of the affected prostate part. Participants were evaluated with MRI-guided biopsy (MRGB) at baseline and at 6 months and 18 months after treatment. Absence of csPCa upon MRGB was the primary endpoint; quality-of-life at baseline and at 6 months after treatment was assessed by EPIC-CP questionnaires in the domains of urinary and sexual function.

RESULTS

Of the 143 participants, 136 (95%) completed MRGB at 6 months after treatment. In 103/136 (76%), the biopsy revealed no csPCa. Of the 103, 71 subsequently had an 18-month comprehensive biopsy; of the 71 with 18-month biopsies, 46 (65%) were found to have no csPCa. MRI lesions became undetectable in 96/130 (74%); declines in median serum PSA levels (6.9 to 2.5 ng/mL), PSA density (0.15 to 0.07), and prostate volume (42 to 34cc) were observed (all p < 0.01). Neither lesion disappearance on MRI nor PSA decline correlated with biopsy outcome. Urinary function was affected only slightly and sexual function moderately.

CONCLUSION

In the near to intermediate term, partial gland ablation with cryotherapy was found to be a safe and moderately effective treatment of intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Eradication of cancer was better determined by MRI-guided biopsy than by MRI or PSA.

Outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy after initial irreversible electroporation treatment for recurrent prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate: (i) safety, (ii) feasibility, and medium-term (iii) oncological and (iv) functional outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) for recurrent localised prostate cancer (PCa) following initial focal therapy using irreversible electroporation (IRE).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An international, multicentre and retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients that underwent sRP for recurrent localised PCa after initial primary IRE treatment. Data were reported on (i) surgical complications, (ii) feasibility of sRP reported by surgeons, (iii) time interval between IRE and sRP and pathology results, and (iv) urinary continence, erectile function, and quality of life.

RESULTS

In four participating centres, a total of 39 patients with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age 64 (60-67) years were identified. No serious adverse events occurred during or following sRP and surgery was deemed feasible without difficulties. The median (IQR) time to recurrence following IRE was 14.3 (9.1-38.8) months. Pathology results showed localised disease in 21 patients (53.8%) and locally-advanced disease in 18 (46.2%). Positive surgical margins (PSMs) were observed in 10 patients (25.6%), of which six (15.4%) had significant PSMs. A persistent detectable prostate-specific antigen level was found in one case after sRP, caused by metastatic disease. One patient had a biochemical recurrence 6 months after sRP. These two cases, together with a PSM case, required additional therapy after sRP. After a median (IQR) follow-up of 17.7 (11.8-26.4) months, urinary continence and erectile function were preserved in 34 (94.4%) and 18 patients (52.9%), respectively, while quality of life remained stable.

CONCLUSIONS

Salvage RP is safe and feasible for patients with recurrent localised PCa following initial IRE treatment. The medium-term oncological and functional outcomes are similar to primary RP. Strict patient selection for focal therapy and standardised follow-up is needed as some patients developed high-grade disease.

Molecular biomarkers in the context of focal therapy for prostate cancer: recommendations of a Delphi Consensus from the Focal Therapy Society

BACKGROUND

Focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa) is promising. However, long-term oncological results are awaited and there is no consensus on follow-up strategies. Molecular biomarkers (MB) may be useful in selecting, treating and following up men undergoing FT, though there is limited evidence in this field to guide practice. We aimed to conduct a consensus meeting, endorsed by the Focal Therapy Society, amongst a large group of experts, to understand the potential utility of MB in FT for localized PCa.

METHODS

A 38-item questionnaire was built following a literature search. The authors then performed three rounds of a Delphi Consensus using DelphiManager, using the GRADE grid scoring system, followed by a face-to-face expert meeting. Three areas of interest were identified and covered concerning MB for FT, 1) the current/present role; 2) the potential/future role; 3) the recommended features for future studies. Consensus was defined using a 70% agreement threshold.

RESULTS

Of 95 invited experts, 42 (44.2%) completed the three Delphi rounds. Twenty-four items reached a consensus and they were then approved at the meeting involving (N.=15) experts. Fourteen items reached a consensus on uncertainty, or they did not reach a consensus. They were re-discussed, resulting in a consensus (N.=3), a consensus on a partial agreement (N.=1), and a consensus on uncertainty (N.=10). A final list of statements were derived from the approved and discussed items, with the addition of three generated statements, to provide guidance regarding MB in the context of FT for localized PCa. Research efforts in this field should be considered a priority.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study detailed an initial consensus on the use of MB in FT for PCa. This is until evidence becomes available on the subject.

The SAFE Pilot Trial—SAlvage Focal Irreversible Electroporation—For Recurrent Localized Prostate Cancer: Rationale and Study Protocol

Introduction

Currently, the majority of prostate cancer (PCa) recurrences after non-surgical first-line treatment are managed with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) is a curative alternative to ADT but yields significant morbidity. Preliminary evidence from focal salvage treatments shows similar oncological control but lower morbidity compared to sRP. Among available ablative focal energies, irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a treatment modality that proved promising, especially in treating apical lesions, where PCa most often recurs. Our aim is to test the safety of salvage IRE for recurrent PCa.

Methods

We performed a single-arm pilot feasibility study (IDEAL stage 2a): SAFE, SAlvage Focal irreversible Electroporation for recurrent localized PCa. Twenty patients with biopsy-proven PCa recurrence after primary non-surgical (radiation or ablation) treatment were included. All men will undergo mpMRI ± targeted biopsies, pre-operative PSMA-PET staging before inclusion and sIRE. Outcomes will be evaluated through internationally validated questionnaires and morbidity scales. All men will undergo a control biopsy at one year.

Results

Primary objectives were the evaluation of the safety of sIRE (and patients’ quality of life) after treatment. Secondary objectives were the evaluation of functional outcomes, namely, continence and erectile function changes and evaluation of short-term oncological efficacy.

Conclusions

SAFE is the second pilot study to evaluate sIRE and the first one performed according to the most recent diagnostic and staging imaging standards. sIRE may provide a curative option for recurrent PCa together with lower comorbidities compared to sRP.

Clinical and pathologic characteristics to select patients for focal therapy or partial gland ablation of nonmetastatic prostate cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Focal therapy or partial gland ablation for nonmetastatic prostate cancer is gaining popularity not just as an alternative to active surveillance, but as an acceptable alternative to whole gland therapy in appropriate cases. This review summarizes recent evidence to help select patients for optimal outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recommendations by expert panels have become less conservative with each meeting. As experience with older modalities for focal therapy grows, newer modalities continue to be introduced. We are now in a position to offer personalized treatment pathway considering nuances of each focal therapy modality.

SUMMARY

The ideal case for focal therapy should be an MRI visible significant lesion (PIRADS score ≥ 3), with a positive biopsy for significant cancer (Gleason grade group 2-3) in the corresponding targeted biopsy area, and insignificant or absent disease in the nontarget random biopsy areas. Multifocal disease can also be selectively treated. Salvage focal ablation is an attractive treatment option for radio-recurrent or index focal therapy failure cases.

Focal low dose-rate brachytherapy for low to intermediate risk prostate cancer: preliminary experience at an Australian institution

Background

Focal treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) is a hybrid approach combining ablative treatment of the involved prostate gland and continued active surveillance (AS) of the unaffected gland. Low dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy can be used as a lesion-targeted focal therapy, however, further studies are required to support its use. The aim of this study is to evaluate the dosimetry, toxicity and oncological outcomes of men receiving lesion-targeted focal LDR brachytherapy for low to intermediate risk PCa.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study of 26 men with unifocal, low to intermediate grade PCa diagnosed on a combination of multiparametric-magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) and targeted plus template transperineal (TP) biopsy, who received focal LDR brachytherapy at a single institution. Brachytherapy involved a single monotherapy implant using iodine-125 seeds to deliver a prescribed dose of 145 Gy to the index lesion.

Results

The mean focal planning target volume (F-PTV) as a percentage of the prostate volume was 24.5%. The percentage of the focal gross tumour volume (F-GTV) receiving 100% of the prescription dose was 100% for 12 patients and ≥98% for 18 patients. The median follow-up for toxicity and biochemical control outcomes was 23.1 [interquartile range (IQR) 19.1–31.3] and 24.2 (IQR 17.9–30.0) months, respectively. Grade 2 urinary and erectile toxicities were reported by 29.2% and 45.8% of patients, respectively, with resolution of urinary symptoms to baseline by last follow-up. There were no grade ≥3 urinary or erectile toxicities or grade ≥2 rectal toxicity. All 21 patients who underwent a repeat mp-MRI and TP biopsy at 12–24 months post-treatment were negative for clinically significant disease and 25 (96.2%) patients were free from biochemical failure (FFBF).

Conclusions

Focal LDR brachytherapy is associated with a favourable toxicity profile and a high rate of control of significant PCa at 12–18 months post-treatment. We have commenced the LIBERATE prospective registry in focal LDR brachytherapy based on the highly encouraging outcomes of this initial experience.

Long-term Outcomes of Focal Cryotherapy for Low- to Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: Results and Matched Pair Analysis with Active Surveillance

BACKGROUND

To date, only one trial compared focal therapy and active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). In addition, long-term outcomes of focal cryotherapy (FC) are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to evaluate long-term outcomes of FC and compare them with AS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We included two prospective series of 121 (FC) and 459 (AS) consecutive patients (2008-2018) for low- to intermediate-risk PCa.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Study outcomes were radical therapy-free or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)-free, any treatment-free, metastasis-free, and overall survival. A matched pair analysis was performed using seven covariates.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The median FC follow-up was 85 mo (interquartile range 58-104); 92 (76%) men had International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 1. Among matched variables, no significant differences were present except for cT stage and year of entry (both p < 0.01). Ten-year radical therapy-free or ADT-free, any treatment-free, metastasis-free, and overall survival were 51%, 40.2%, 93.9%, and 97%, respectively for FC. No differences were noted with AS (all p > 0.05), with the exception of time to radical therapy, time to radical therapy and ADT, and time to any treatment, all being shorter for AS (all p < 0.01). Freedom from radical treatment or ADT was higher for FC (AS 10 yr 39.3%; p = 0.04). Complications were relatively rare (26.5%) and mainly of low grade (Clavien >2, n = 3); three men developed incontinence (p = 0.0814), while both International Index of Erectile Function 5 and International Prostate Symptom Score scores increased (p = 0.0287 and p = 0.0165, respectively). Limitations include absence of randomization.

CONCLUSIONS

At an early long-term follow-up, FC in the context of mainly low-risk PCa is safe and increases time to radical therapy but does not provide meaningful oncological advantages compared with AS.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We compared focal cryotherapy with active surveillance mainly for low-risk prostate cancer. Focal cryotherapy, despite having fewer complications, did not yield meaningful advantages over active surveillance at 10 yr. Active surveillance should be preferred to focal cryotherapy for these patients.

Triggers and oncologic outcome of salvage radical prostatectomy, salvage radiotherapy and active surveillance after focal therapy of prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Due to the tissue preserving approach of focal therapy (FT), local cancer relapse can occur. Uncertainty exists regarding triggers and outcome of salvage strategies.

METHODS

Patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer (PCa) after FT for localized PCa from 2011 to 2020 at eight tertiary referral hospitals in Germany that underwent salvage radical prostatectomy (S-RP), salvage radiotherapy (S-RT) or active surveillance (AS) were reported. Prostate specific antigen (PSA) changes, suspicious lesions on mpMRI and histopathological findings on biopsy were analyzed. A multivariable regression model was created for adverse pathological findings (APF) at S-RP specimen. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to determine oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 90 men were included. Cancer relapse after FT was detected at a median of 12 months (IQR 9-16). Of 50 men initially under AS 13 received S-RP or S-RT. In total, 44 men underwent S-RP and 13 S-RT. At cancer relapse 17 men (38.6%) in the S-RP group [S-RT n = 4 (30.8%); AS n = 3 (6%)] had ISUP > 2. APF (pT ≥ 3, ISUP ≥ 3, pN + or R1) were observed in 23 men (52.3%). A higher ISUP on biopsy was associated with APF [p = 0.006 (HR 2.32, 97.5% CI 1.35-4.59)] on univariable analysis. Progression-free survival was 80.4% after S-RP and 100% after S-RT at 3 years. Secondary therapy-free survival was 41.7% at 3 years in men undergoing AS. Metastasis-free survival was 80% at 5 years for the whole cohort.

CONCLUSION

With early detection of cancer relapse after FT S-RP and S-RT provide sufficient oncologic control at short to intermediate follow-up. After AS, a high secondary-therapy rate was observed.

Oncological outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer in the contemporary era: A multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) historically yields poor functional outcomes and high complication rates. However, recent reports on robotic sRP show improved results. Our objectives were to evaluate sRP oncological outcomes and predictors of positive margins and biochemical recurrence (BCR).

METHODS

We retrospectively collected data of sRP for recurrent prostate cancer after local nonsurgical treatment at 18 tertiary referral centers in United States, Australia and Europe, from 2000 to 2016. SM and BCR were evaluated in a univariate and multivariable analysis. Overall and cancer-specific survival were also assessed.

RESULTS

We included 414 cases, 63.5% of them performed after radiotherapy. Before sRP the majority of patients had biopsy Gleason score (GS) ≤7 (55.5%) and imaging negative or with prostatic bed involvement only (93.3%). Final pathology showed aggressive histology in 39.7% (GS ≥9 27.6%), with 52.9% having ≥pT3 disease and 16% pN+. SM was positive in 29.7%. Five years BCR-Free, cancer-specific survival and OS were 56.7%, 97.7% and 92.1%, respectively. On multivariable analysis pathological T (pT3a odds ratio [OR] 2.939, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.469-5.879; ≥pT3b OR 2.428-95% CI 1.333-4.423) and N stage (pN1 OR 2.871, 95% CI 1.503-5.897) were independent predictors of positive margins. Pathological T stage ≥T3b (OR 2.348 95% CI 1.338-4.117) and GS (up to OR 7.183, 95% CI 1.906-27.068 for GS >8) were independent predictors for BCR. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and limited follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In a contemporary series, sRP showed promising oncological control in the medium term despite aggressive pathological features. BCR risk increased in case of locally advanced disease and higher GS. Future studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Focal therapy, time to join the multi-disciplinary team discussion?

Organ preserving management is common place in renal cancer, breast cancer and many other solid organ tumours. Current strategies in managing intermediate risk prostate cancer include either whole gland treatment, in the form of radical radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy, or active surveillance. The former is associated with significant post-treatment functional morbidity, whilst the latter associated with the burden of surveillance activity and patient anxiety. Focal therapy would logically fit as a middle ground for suitable patients in whom treatment would be recommended, but where much better functional outcomes may be possible. Ideally this comes without restricting the successful prevention of harm from the cancer. Historically limitations in developing tissue preserving focal therapy strategies in prostate cancer, were due to inaccuracies in tumour characterisation prior to treatment and during follow up. Consequently for example many patients undergoing an active surveillance strategy were being upgraded and upstaged within a short period. Recently high level evidence supporting the use of MRI and targeted biopsies, in particular the PROMIS and PRECISION trials have strengthened clinician confidence in accurate disease characterisation, thus making focal therapy to become a more feasible management option. With improved diagnostic strategies and the publication of reassuring medium term oncological and functional outcomes after focal therapy for intermediate risk prostate cancer, has the time come to require consideration of focal therapy within our multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meetings and with patients? In this review we will consider patient selection and the evidence for the various focal ablation options as well as the surveillance of these patients after treatment. The forthcoming trials to determine comparative effectiveness will be discussed.

Making a case "against" focal therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Focal therapy (FT) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) is a promising treatment strategy. Although, according to guidelines, it should be regarded as an experimental option, its introduction into clinical practice has occurred at an accelerated speed. It is, thus, crucial for Urologists to understand FT limitations and potential drawbacks that may derive from its use.

METHODS

We performed a literature search of peer-reviewed English language articles using Pubmed and the words "focal therapy" AND "prostate cancer" to identify relevant articles. Web search was complemented by manual search.

RESULTS

From a biological perspective, in contrast with the index lesion theory, which still needs to be better supported, PCa is a multifocal and multiclonal entity. Also, the effects of FT on PCa microenvironment are unclear. From a clinical perspective, patient selection is still not precisely defined. Even when all variables potentially decreasing mpMRI and biopsy accuracy are optimized, up to one out of two men may be incorrectly selected for FT, leaving a significant proportion of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) untreated. Underestimation of PCa volume and variant histologies are other additional mpMRI potential limitations. No RCTs have been performed against the standard of care to support FT. There is absence of long-term results and FT series reaching medium-term follow-up have non-optimal oncological control with significant re-treatment needs. When PCa recurs/persists after FT, little is known about the appropriate management strategies and their outcomes. Finally, the optimal follow-up scheme post-FT remains unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

Several arguments are present against the use of FT for localized PCa. Studies are needed to overcome current limitations and support FT before it can be included as part of the standard management of prostate cancer.

Comparison of outcomes of salvage robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for post-primary radiation vs focal therapy

OBJECTIVES

To compare salvage robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) outcomes in patients who underwent radiation and those who underwent focal ablation as primary therapies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We evaluated 126 patients who underwent salvage RALPbetween 2008 and 2018. Of these, 94 (74.6%) received radiation and 32 focal ablation (25.4%) as primary therapy. These groups were compared with regard to clinical, oncological and functional outcomes. Kaplan-Meier curves and regression models were used to identify survival estimations and their predictors.

RESULTS

Before surgery, more patients were potent in the focal ablation group compared to the radiation group (46.9% vs 22.6%; P = 0.013). Peri-operative characteristics and complication rates were not significantly different between the two groups. Postoperative catheterization duration was shorter in the focal ablation group (mean 10 vs 16 days; P = 0.018). At final pathology, the focal ablation group had higher non-organ-confined disease (71% vs 50%; P = 0.042) and positive surgical margin (PSM) rates (43.8% vs 17%; P = 0.004) as compared to the radiation group; however, 5-year biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival rates were similar (59% vs 56%; P = 0.761). Postoperative 1-year full (no pads/day) and social (0-1 pad/day) continence rates were significantly higher in the focal ablation as compared to the radiation group (77.3% vs 39.2%, P = 0.002, and 87.5% vs 51.3%, P = 0.002, respectively). Multivariate analyses showed primary focal ablation and nerve-sparing to be predictors of postoperative continence. Erectile function was preserved in 13% and 27% of preoperatively potent patients in the radiation and focal ablation groups, respectively (P = 0.435). No predictors were identified for postoperative potency.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiation was associated with inferior functional outcomes after salvage RALP. Focal therapies were associated with higher non-organ-confined disease and PSMrates, with no significant difference in short-term BCR-free survival.