Novel techniques for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: Evidence of efficacy?

Contemporary radical prostatectomy

Purpose. Patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer have more surgical treatment options than in the past. This paper focuses on the procedures' oncological or functional outcomes and perioperative morbidities of radical retropubic prostatectomy, radical perineal prostatectomy, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Materials and Methods. A MEDLINE/PubMed search of the literature on radical prostatectomy and other new management options was performed. Results. Compared to the open procedures, robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy has no confirmed significant difference in most literatures besides less blood loss and blood transfusion. Nerve sparing is a safe means of preserving potency on well-selected patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Positive surgical margin rates of radical prostatectomy affect the recurrence and survival of prostate cancer. The urinary and sexual function outcomes have been vastly improved. Neoadjuvant treatment only affects the rate of positive surgical margin. Adjuvant therapy can delay and reduce the risk of recurrence and improve the survival of the high risk prostate cancer. Conclusions. For the majority of patients with organ-confined prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy remains a most effective approach. Radical perineal prostatectomy remains a viable approach for patients with morbid obesity, prior pelvic surgery, or prior pelvic radiation. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) has become popular among surgeons but has not yet become the firmly established standard of care. Long-term data have confirmed the efficacy of radical retropubic prostatectomy with disease control rates and cancer-specific survival rates.

The current use and future trends of focal surgical therapy in the management of localized prostate cancer

The current treatment algorithms for management of localized prostate cancer are mainly extirpative in nature. Treatment varies from expectant management to radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. However, the ever-increasing emphasis on achieving the best survival benefit while better preserving quality of life, coupled with the introduction of new, safer, and efficacious minimally invasive ablative technologies, has led to the increased popularity of minimally invasive treatment (MIT). MIT refers to the use of a wide range of techniques for local target ablation of the prostate gland with minimal damage to the surrounding tissue. Currently these include cryotherapy and high-intensity focused ultrasound. However, other experimental technologies such as photodynamic therapy, interstitial prostate brachytherapy, and microwave and radiofrequency interstitial tumor ablation are also currently under investigation in early clinical trials. To date, the overall interim results for these relatively new modalities of treatment appear comparable to those for surgical and radiation therapies. However, randomized, controlled studies are needed to support use of these modalities as an alternative to surgery and radiation. In this review, we will address the current rationale for and knowledge of MIT with regard to its safety and efficacy in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. In addition, we will discuss future promising tools in MIT such as photodynamic therapy and the target focal therapy approach as a new trend for the treatment of organ-confined low-volume disease.