Retreatment after focal therapy for failure: a bridge too far?

The Role of Focal Therapy and Active Surveillance for Small Renal Mass Therapy

Small and low-grade renal cell carcinomas have little potential for metastasis and disease-related mortality. As a consequence, the main problem remains the use of appropriately tailored treatment for each individual patient. Surgery still remains the gold standard, but many clinicians are questioning this approach and present the advantages of focal therapy. The choice of treatment regimen remains a matter of debate. This article summarizes the current treatment options in the management of small renal masses.

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.