CONTEXT: The great controversy surrounding the treatment of localized prostate cancer is related with its possibilities of radical treatment or active surveillance.
The objective of this paper is to analyze the rationale selection among current focal therapy modalities regarding tumor and patient selection.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Current articles about advantages and disadvantages on the treatment of localized prostate cancer as well as information about focal therapy regarding tumour selection, characteristics and indications cited in MEDLINE search were reviewed.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE: Focal therapy standardized criteria must be: low risk tumors, PSA< 10-15, Gleason score≤ 6, and unilateral presentation all supported by image-guided biopsy and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). There are doubts about the suitability of focal therapy in cases of bilateralism or in those with Gleason score 3+4 or PSA>15.
CONCLUSIONS: Focal therapy is an alternative for localized prostate cancer treatment. However, some aspects of their diagnosis and selection criteria should be defined by prospective studies which should provide knowledge about the indication for focal therapy.
Written by:
Gómez-Veiga F, Portela-Pereira P, Cozar-Olmo JM, Ahmed H, Moore C, Dickinson L, Algaba F, Izquierdo L, Alcaraz Asensio A, Martinez-Breijo S, Emberton M. Are you the author?
Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario de Salamanca y Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de A Coruña, A Coruña, España; Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario de Granada, Granada, España; Urology Department, University College London Hospital, Londres, Reino Unido; Servicio de Urología, Fundación Puigvert, Barcelona, España; Servicio de Urología, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, España.
Reference: Actas Urol Esp. 2014 Feb 17. pii: S0210-4806(14)00004-7.
doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2013.12.005
PubMed Abstract
PMID: 24556193
Article in English, Spanish.
UroToday.com Prostate Cancer Section
