Abstract
Focal therapy (FT) for the treatment of localized prostate cancer offers an alternative strategy for men seeking active treatment. Although relatively new, existing studies suggest that the majority of men who undergo FT tend to maintain levels of genito-urinary function that are indistinguishable from their pre-treatment status. However, as part of the shared decision making process, men need to balance good tolerability against a greater risk of recurrence given that much of the prostate remains intact after FT. In order to explore this trade-off, we used decision modelling. Our findings show that the burden of functional complications associated with radical prostatectomy (RP) is considerable, as an average of 243 days of perfect health are lost per patient due to treatment-induced urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Given this effectiveness gap in current care, we explored by how much mortality – as worst-case outcome of disease progression – could increase to still result in net health benefit. To do this we mapped the net health benefit/loss of FT, in comparison to RP, for different levels of function preservation and increases in mortality. We believe our modelling exercise might help inform future studies that seek to enhance our understanding of how men make treatment decisions.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 4 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $64.75 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
van der Poel HG, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Cornford P, Govorov A, Henry AM, et al. Focal therapy in primary localised prostate cancer: The European Association of Urology Position in 2018. Eur Urol. 2018;74:84–91.
van den Bos W, Muller BG, Ahmed H, Bangma CH, Barret E, Crouzet S, et al. Focal therapy in prostate cancer: international multidisciplinary consensus on trial design. Eur Urol. 2014;65:1078–83.
Neumann PJ, Cohen JT. Qalys in 2018—advantages and concerns. JAMA. 2018;319:2473–74.
Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, Kuntz KM. Modeling good research practices—overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-1. Value Health. 2012;15:796–803.
Ficarra V, Borghesi M, Suardi N, De Naeyer G, Novara G, Schatteman P, et al. Long-term evaluation of survival, continence and potency (SCP) outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). BJU Int. 2013;112:338–45.
Haglind E, Carlsson S, Stranne J, Wallerstedt A, Wilderang U, Thorsteinsdottir T, et al. Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after robotic versus open radical prostatectomy: a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial. Eur Urol. 2015;68:216–25.
Stewart ST, Lenert L, Bhatnagar V, Kaplan RM. Utilities for prostate cancer health states in men aged 60 and older. Med Care. 2005;43:347–55.
Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, Rider JR, Taari K, Busch C, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. New Engl J Med. 2014;370:932–42.
Valerio M, Cerantola Y, Eggener SE, Lepor H, Polascik TJ, Villers A, et al. New and established technology in focal ablation of the prostate: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2017;71:17–34.
Acknowledgements
We are indebted to Charlotte Michels for her critical revision of earlier drafts of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Mark Emberton receives research support from the United Kingdom’s National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) UCLH/UCL Biomedical Research Centre. He has been an NIHR Senior Investigator since 2014.
Additional information
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kluytmans, A., Fütterer, J.J., Emberton, M. et al. Exploring the risk-reward balance in focal therapy for prostate cancer—a contribution to the debate. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 22, 382–384 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-018-0125-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-018-0125-y