Abstract
The current treatment choice for men with localized prostate cancer lies between active surveillance and radical therapy. The difference between these two extremes of care is 5% in terms of cancer-related absolute mortality at 8 years. It is generally accepted that this small difference will decrease for men diagnosed in the prostate-specific-antigen era. Radical therapy is associated with considerable adverse effects (e.g. incontinence, impotence, rectal problems) because it treats the whole gland, and damages surrounding structures in up to half of men. Men are being diagnosed at a younger age with lower-risk disease, and many have unifocal or unilateral disease. We propose a new concept whereby only the tumor focus and a margin of normal tissue are treated. This paradigm might decrease adverse effects whilst, at the same time, retaining effective cancer control. The arguments for and against active surveillance and radical therapy are reviewed in this article, with focal therapy presented as a means for bridging these two approaches.
Key Points
-
The current choice for men with localized prostate cancer lies between active surveillance and radical therapy
-
Radical therapy carries significant side effects (e.g. incontinence, impotence, rectal problems) because it treats the whole gland and damages surrounding structures in up to half of men
-
Active surveillance might exclude men who have risk factors at presentation, and it is likely that those excluded are therefore more likely to benefit from treatment
-
The decision to choose radical therapy is not only confounded by the lack of clear evidence for a survival benefit but also the degree of morbidity
-
Focal therapy might be almost as effective as radical (whole gland) treatment with similar low adverse effects as seen in those with active surveillance
-
A significant proportion of men with organ-confined, low-to-moderate risk prostate cancer may be spared from disease progression and have a high probability of preserving genitourinary and bowel function with focal therapy
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Potosky AL et al. (2004) Five-year outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Natl Cancer Inst 96: 1358–1367
Penson DF and Litwin MS (2003) The physical burden of prostate cancer. Urol Clin North Am 30: 305–313
Klotz L (2005) Active surveillance for prostate cancer: for whom? J Clin Oncol 23: 8165–8169
Hardie C et al. (2005) Early outcomes of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 95: 956–960
Cooperberg MR et al. (2005) The changing face of prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 23: 8146–8151
Galper SL et al. (2006) Evidence to support a continued stage migration and decrease in prostate cancer specific mortality. J Urol 175: 907–912
Bill-Axelsen A et al. (2005) Watchful waiting and prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 352: 1977–1984
Zeliadt SB et al. (2006) Why do men choose one treatment over another: a review of patient decision making for localized prostate cancer. Cancer 106: 1865–1874
Djavan B et al. (2000) Predictability and significance of multi-focal prostate cancer in the radical prostatectomy specimen. Tech Urol 5: 139–142
Quintal MM et al. (2006) Prostate cancer pathologic stage pT2b (2002 TNM staging system): does it exist? Int Braz J Urol 32: 43–47
Langenstroer P et al. (2005) Clinical and pathological characteristics of unstageable prostate cancer: analysis of the CaPSURE database. J Urol 174: 118–120
Gregori A et al. (2001) Comparison of ultrasound-guided biopsies and prostatectomy specimens: predictive accuracy of Gleason score and tumor site. Urol Int 66: 66–71
Ramos CG et al. (1999) Clinical and pathological characteristics, and recurrence rates of stage T1c versus T2a or T2b prostate cancer. J Urol 161: 1525–1529
Polascik TJ et al. (2007) Prostate cancer laterality as a rationale for clinical application of focal ablation therapy: an analysis of 1,184 prostatectomy specimens [abstract #302]. Presented at ASCO Prostate Cancer Symposium: 2007 May 22–24; Orlando, FL, USA.
Chen ME et al. (2000) Detailed mapping of prostate carcinoma foci: biopsy strategy implications. Cancer 89: 1800–1809
Miller GJ and Cygan JM (1994) Morphology of prostate cancer: the effects of multifocality on histological grade, tumor volume and capsule penetration. J Urol 152: 1709–1713
Simma-Chiang V et al. (2006) Increased prevalence of unifocal prostate cancer in a contemporary series of radical prostatectomy specimens: implications for focal ablation [abstract #1163]. Presented at the AUA Annual Meeting: 2006 May 20–25, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Ohori M et al. (2006) Is focal therapy reasonable in patients with early stage prostate cancer (CAP)—an analysis of radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens [abstract #1574]. Presented at the AUA Annual Meeting: 2006 May 20–25, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Harlan SR et al. (2003) Time trends and characteristics of men choosing watchful waiting for initial treatment of localized prostate cancer: results from CaPSURE. J Urol 170: 1804–1807
Furuno T et al. (2004) Difference of cancer core distribution between first and repeat biopsy in patients diagnosed by extensive transperineal ultrasound guided template prostate biopsy. Prostate 58: 76–81
Villers A et al. (1992) Multiple cancers in the prostate: morphologic features of clinically recognized vs incidental tumors. Cancer 70: 2312–2318
Andren O et al. (2006) How well does the Gleason score predict prostate cancer death? A 20-year follow up of a population based cohort in Sweden. J Urol 175: 1337–1340
Vis AN et al. (2007) Should we replace the Gleason score with the amount of high-grade prostate cancer? Eur Urol 51: 931–939
Wise AM et al. (2002) Morphologic and clinical significance of multiple prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 60: 264–269
Truskinovsky AM et al. (2004) Characterization of minute adenocarcinomas of prostate at radical prostatectomy. Urology 64: 733–737
Nelson BA et al. (2006) Tumour volume is an independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen recurrence in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 97: 1169–1172
Kikuchi E et al. (2004) Is tumor volume an independent prognostic factor in clinically localized prostate cancer? J Urol 172: 508–511
Hanson JA et al. (2006) Gene promoter methylation in prostate tumor-associated stromal cells. J Natl Cancer Inst 98: 255–261
Uetsuki H et al. (2005) Expression of a novel biomarker, EPCA, in adenocarcinomas and precancerous lesions in the prostate. J Urol 174: 514–518
Chandran UR et al. (2005) Differences in gene expression in prostate cancer, normal appearing prostate tissue adjacent to cancer and prostate tissue from cancer-free organ donors. BMC Cancer 5: 45
Montironi R et al. (2000) Nuclear changes in the normal-looking columnar epithelium adjacent to and distant from prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and prostate cancer: morphometric analysis in whole-mount sections. Virchows Arch 437: 625–634
Zietman AL et al. (2005) Comparison of conventional-dose vs high-dose conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 294: 1233–1239
Richie JP (2005) Radical prostatectomy vs watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. BJU Int 96: 951–952
Loeb S et al. (2006) Pathological characteristics of prostate cancer detected through prostate specific antigen based screening. J Urol 175: 902–906
Konety BR et al. (2005) Comparison of the incidence of latent prostate cancer detected at autopsy before and after the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 174: 1785–1788
Draisma G et al. (2003) Lead times and over detection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 95: 868–878
Nicholson PW and Harland SJ (2002) Survival prospects after screen-detection of prostate cancer. BJU Int 90: 686–693
Parker C et al. (2006) A model of the natural history of screen-detected prostate cancer, and the effect of radical treatment on overall survival. Br J Cancer 94: 1361–1368
Van As NJ et al. (2007) Active surveillance of low risk localized prostate cancer: Baseline predictors of disease progression [abstract #319]. Presented at ASCO Prostate Cancer Symposium: 2007 May 22–24; Orlando, FL, USA.
D'Amico AV et al (2004) Preoperative PSA velocity and the risk of death from prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med 351: 125–135
Giordano SH et al. (2006) Late gastrointestinal toxicity after radiation for prostate cancer. Cancer 107: 423–432
Nilsson S et al. (2004) A systematic overview of radiation therapy effects in prostate cancer. Acta Oncol 43: 316–381
Thompson IM et al. (1999) Have complication rates decreased after treatment for localized prostate cancer? J Urol 162: 107–112
Meraney AM et al. (2005) Surgical management of prostate cancer: advances based on a rational approach to the data. Eur J Cancer 41: 888–907
Menon M et al. (2007) Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol 51: 648–658
Hegarty NJ and Kaouk JH (2006) Radical prostatectomy: a comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic techniques. Can J Urol 13 (Suppl 1): S56–S61
Khoo VS (2005) Radiotherapeutic techniques for prostate cancer, dose escalation and brachytherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 17: 560–571
Antunes AA et al. (2005) The percentage of positive biopsy cores as a predictor of disease recurrence in patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 96: 1258–1263
Freedland SJ et al. for the SEARCH Database Study Group (2003) Percent of prostate needle biopsy cores with cancer is significant independent predictor of prostate specific antigen recurrence following radical prostatectomy: results from SEARCH database. J Urol 169: 2136–2141
Zhou P et al. (2005) Predictors of prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol 23: 6992–6998
Albertsen PC et al. (2005) 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 293: 2095–2101
Montironi R et al. (2006) Prostate carcinoma I: prognostic factors in radical prostatectomy specimens and pelvic lymph nodes. BJU Int 97: 485–491
Montironi R et al. (2006) Prostate carcinoma II: prognostic factors in prostate needle biopsies. BJU Int 97: 492–497
Johansson JE et al. (2004) Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer. JAMA 291: 2713–2719
Holmboe ES and Concato J (2000) Treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer: asking men what's important. J Gen Intern Med 15: 694–701
Chapple A et al. (2002) Is 'watchful waiting' a real choice for men with prostate cancer? A qualitative study. BJU Int 90: 257–264
Onik G et al. (2002) Focal “nerve-sparing” cryosurgery for treatment of primary prostate cancer: a new approach to preserving potency. Urology 60: 109–114
Onik G (2005) Focal cryoablation for prostate cancer [abstract #506]. Presented at the Society of Interventional Radiology, 30th Annual Scientific Meeting: 2005 March 31–April 4, New Orleans, LA, USA.
American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Consensus Panel (1997) Consensus statement: guidelines for PSA following radiation therapy. Int J Radiat 37: 1035–1041
Bahn DK et al. (2006) Focal prostate cryoablation: initial results show cancer control and potency preservation. J Endourol 20: 688–692
Remzi M et al. for the European Society for Oncological Urology (2004) Can power Doppler enhanced transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy improve prostate cancer detection on first and repeat prostate biopsy? Eur Urol 46: 451–456
Takahashi S et al. (2002) Power Doppler ultrasonography-directed prostate biopsy in men with elevated serum PSA levels: an evaluation of the clinical utility and limitations. Urology 60: 248–252
Kirkham AP et al. (2006) How good is MRI at detecting and characterising cancer within the prostate? Eur Urol 50: 1163–1174
Kozlowski P et al. (2006) Combined diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis—correlation with biopsy and histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 24: 108–113
Hricak H (2005) MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging in the pre-treatment evaluation of prostate cancer. Br J Radiol 78 (Special issue 2): S103–S111
Villers A et al. (2006) Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol 176: 2432–2437
Ikonen S et al. (1998) Magnetic resonance imaging of clinically localized prostatic cancer. J Urol 159: 915–919
Zakian KL et al. (2005) Correlation of proton MR spectroscopic imaging with Gleason score based on step-section pathologic analysis after radical prostatectomy. Radiology 234: 804–814
Dhingsa R et al. (2004) Prostate cancer localization with endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging: effect of clinical data on reader accuracy. Radiology 230: 215–220
Crawford ED et al. (2005) Clinical staging of prostate cancer: a computer-simulated study of transperineal prostate biopsy. BJU Int 96: 999–1004
Lagerburg V et al. (2005) Measurement of prostate rotation during insertion of needles for brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 77: 318–323
Furuno T et al. (2004) Difference of cancer core distribution between first and repeat biopsy: in patients diagnosed by extensive transperineal ultrasound guided template prostate biopsy. Prostate 58: 76–81
Miller J et al. (2005) Complications of transrectal versus transperineal prostate biopsy. ANZ J Surg 75: 48–50
Pinkstaff DM et al. (2005) Systematic transperineal ultrasound-guided template biopsy of the prostate: three-year experience. Urology 65: 735–739
Andriole GL (2006) Biopsy: is there a better way to biopsy the prostate? In: Where we've been and where we're going: current issues in localized prostate cancer; AUA Annual Meeting, 2006 May 20–25; Atlanta, GA, USA.
Barqawi A and Crawford ED (2005) Focal therapy in prostate cancer: future trends. BJU Int 95: 273–280
Illing RO et al. (2006) Visually directed HIFU for organ confined prostate cancer: a proposed standard for the conduct of therapy. BJU Int 98: 1187–1192
Djavan B et al. (2005) Prostate biopsy: who, how and when: an update. Can J Urol 12 (Suppl 1): S44–S48
Djavan B et al. (2005) Are repeat biopsies required in men with PSA levels ≤4 ng/ml? A multiinstitutional prospective European study. Eur Urol 47: 38–44
Fleming MT et al. (2006) Post-therapy changes in PSA as an outcome measure in prostate cancer clinical trials. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 3: 658–667
Medical Research Council Health Services and Public Health Research Board (2000) A framework for development and evaluation of RCTs for complex interventions to improve health. London: Medical Research Council.
Acknowledgements
Désirée Lie, University of California, Irvine, CA, is the author of and is solely responsible for the content of the learning objectives, questions and answers of the Medscape-accredited continuing medical education activity associated with this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
Hasim U Ahmed and Mark Emberton receive funding from The Prostate Research Campaign UK (charity), Prostate Cancer Research Centre UK (charity) and Pelican Cancer Foundation UK (charity), for work in focal therapy. Mark Emberton is a Medical Consultant to Misonix Inc. In addition, Mark Emberton receives funding from Negma Lerads, France (manufacturers of TOOKAD, a photodynamic agent used in prostate cancer therapy) and Misonix Inc (distributors of the Sonablate® 500 HIFU device). Doug Pendse receives funding from Negma Lerads. Rowland Illing receives funding from the Pelican Cancer Foundation charity, UK. Clare Allen and Jan van der Meulen declared no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ahmed, H., Pendse, D., Illing, R. et al. Will focal therapy become a standard of care for men with localized prostate cancer?. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 4, 632–642 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncponc0959
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncponc0959
This article is cited by
-
Oncological results and cancer control definition in focal therapy for Prostate Cancer: a systematic review
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases (2023)
-
Fokale Therapie bei Prostatakrebs
Der Urologe (2019)
-
68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT imaging of localized primary prostate cancer patients for intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment planning with integrated boost
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (2018)
-
Percutaneous MR-guided focal cryoablation for recurrent prostate cancer following radiation therapy: retrospective analysis of iceball margins and outcomes
European Radiology (2017)
-
An update on focal therapy for prostate cancer
Nature Reviews Urology (2016)