CONTEXT: The current management of localized prostate cancer is a therapeutic challenge with different options including active radicals or active follow-up.
The aim of this paper is to analyze the feasibility and validity of the «Focal» active treatment versus the concept of active follow-up or Radical Treatment.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We reviewed the literature on the various diagnostic methods, advantages, and difficulties of active follow-up and Radical Treatment, versus focal therapy with the possibilities of defining characteristics of aggressiveness and patient selection.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The mesh biopsy techniques along with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and association of factors such as tumor size, length of affected cylinder and Gleason are parameters that allow us to define location and definition of clinically significant tumors and subsidiary of focal therapies.
CONCLUSIONS: The definition, location and aggressiveness of prostate cancer in low-intermediate risk tumors can be defined avoiding radical therapies with their side effects or the risks of underestimating tumors as in active follow-up without the minimum side effects.
Written by:
Emberton M, Gómez-Veiga F, Ahmed H, Dickinson L. Are you the author?
Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, Londres, Reino Unido.
Reference: Actas Urol Esp. 2013 Jul 16. pii: S0210-4806(13)00079-X.
doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2013.02.008
PubMed Abstract
PMID: 23870479
Article in English, Spanish.
UroToday.com Prostate Cancer Section
