Search

Only 1 randomized controlled trial has compared focal therapy and active surveillance (AS) for the low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). We investigated whether focal HIFU (fHIFU) yields oncologic advantages over AS for low-risk PCa.We included 2 non-randomized prospective series of 132 (fHIFU) and 421 (AS) consecutive patients diagnosed with ISUP 1 PCa between 2008 and 2018. A matched pair analysis was performed to decrease potential bias. Study main outcomes were freedom from radical treatment (RT) or androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), treatment-free survival (TFS), time to metastasis, and overall survival (OS).Median fHIFU follow-up was 50 months (interquartile range, 29-84 months). Among matched variables, no major differences were recorded except for AS having more suspicious digital rectal examination findings (P = .0074) and recent enrollment year (P = .0005). Five-year intervention-free survival from RT or ADT was higher for the fHIFU cohort (67.4% vs. 53.8%; P = .0158). Time to treatment was approximately 10 months shorter for AS than for fHIFU (time to RT, P = .0363; time to RT or ADT, P = .0156; time to any treatment, P = .0319). No differences were found in any-TFS (fHIFU, 61.4% vs. AS, 53.8%; P = .2635), OS (fHIFU, 97% vs. AS, 97%; P = .9237), or metastasis (n = 0 in fHIFU and n = 2 in AS; P = .4981). Major complications (≥ Clavien 3) were rare (n = 4), although 36.4% of men experienced complications. No relevant changes were noted in continence (P = .3949).At a 4-year median follow-up, fHIFU for mainly low-risk PCa (ISUP grade 1) is safe, may decrease the need for radical treatment or ADT and may allow longer time to treatment compared to AS. Nonetheless, no advantages are seen in PCa progression and/or death (OS).

To date, only one trial compared focal therapy and active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). In addition, long-term outcomes of focal cryotherapy (FC) are lacking.Our aim was to evaluate long-term outcomes of FC and compare them with AS.We included two prospective series of 121 (FC) and 459 (AS) consecutive patients (2008-2018) for low- to intermediate-risk PCa.Study outcomes were radical therapy-free or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)-free, any treatment-free, metastasis-free, and overall survival. A matched pair analysis was performed using seven covariates.The median FC follow-up was 85 mo (interquartile range 58-104); 92 (76%) men had International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 1. Among matched variables, no significant differences were present except for cT stage and year of entry (both p0.01). Ten-year radical therapy-free or ADT-free, any treatment-free, metastasis-free, and overall survival were 51%, 40.2%, 93.9%, and 97%, respectively for FC. No differences were noted with AS (all p0.05), with the exception of time to radical therapy, time to radical therapy and ADT, and time to any treatment, all being shorter for AS (all p0.01). Freedom from radical treatment or ADT was higher for FC (AS 10 yr 39.3%; p = 0.04). Complications were relatively rare (26.5%) and mainly of low grade (Clavien2, n = 3); three men developed incontinence (p = 0.0814), while both International Index of Erectile Function 5 and International Prostate Symptom Score scores increased (p = 0.0287 and p = 0.0165, respectively). Limitations include absence of randomization.At an early long-term follow-up, FC in the context of mainly low-risk PCa is safe and increases time to radical therapy but does not provide meaningful oncological advantages compared with AS.We compared focal cryotherapy with active surveillance mainly for low-risk prostate cancer. Focal cryotherapy, despite having fewer complications, did not yield meaningful advantages over active surveillance at 10 yr. Active surveillance should be preferred to focal cryotherapy for these patients.

This review provides an overview of the available ablative options for prostate cancer (PCa) management. It contemplates the ablative concepts and the role of prostate ablation in different settings, from primary treatment to repeat ablation, and as an alternative to radiorecurrent disease. Improvements in prostate imaging have allowed us to ablate prostate lesions through thermal, mechanical, and vascular-targeted sources of energy. Partial gland ablation (PGA) has an emerging role in the management of localized PCa because toxicity outcomes have been proven less harmful compared with whole-gland treatments. Although long-term oncological outcomes are yet to be consolidated in comparative studies, recent large series and prospective studies in PGA have reported encouraging results. A second ablation after disease recurrence has demonstrated low toxicity, and future studies must define its potential to avoid radical treatments. PGA is an attractive option for PCa management in different scenarios because of its low-toxicity profile. As expected, recurrence rates are higher than those seen in whole-gland procedures. Long-term oncological outcomes of primary and salvage options are required to endorse it among the standard treatments.

Background Radical prostatectomy (RP) has been used as the main primary treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) for many years with excellent oncologic results. However, approximately 20-40% of those patients has failed to RP and presented biochemical recurrence (BCR). Prostatic specific antigen (PSA) has been the pivotal tool for recurrence diagnosis, but there is no consensus about the best PSA threshold to define BCR until this moment. The natural history of BCR after surgical procedure is highly variable, but it is important to distinguish biochemical and clinical recurrence and to find the correct timing to start multimodal treatment strategy. Also, it is important to understand the role of each clinical and pathological feature of prostate cancer in BCR, progression to metastatic disease and cancer specific mortality (CSM). Review design A simple review was made in Medline for articles written in English language about biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Objective To provide an updated assessment of BCR definition, its meaning, PCa natural history after BCR and the weight of each clinical/pathological feature and risk group classifications in BCR, metastatic disease and CSM.

Introduction: Prostate cancer is one of the tumors with higher incidence and mortality among men in the World. Epidemiological data are influenced by life expectancy of population, available diagnostic methods, correct collection of data and quality of health services. Screening of the disease is not standardized around the World. Up till now there is no consensus about the risks versus benefits of early detection. There are still missing data about this pathology in Latin America. Objective: to revise current epidemiologic situation and early diagnosis policies of prostate cancer in Brazil and Latin America. Materials and Methods: Medline, Cochrane Library and SciELO databases were reviewed on the subject of epidemiology and screening of prostate cancer. Screening research was performed in websites on national public health organizations and Latin America. Screening recommendations were obtained from those governmental organizations and from Latin American urological societies and compared to the most prominent regulatory agencies and societies of specialists and generalists from around the World. Results: Brazil and Latin America have a special position in relation to incidence and mortality of prostate cancer. In Brazil, it occupies the first position regarding incidence of cancer in men and the second cause of mortality. Central America has the highest rate of mortality of the continent with lower incidence/mortality ratios. Screening recommendations are very distinct, mainly among regulatory organs and urological societies. Conclusion: prostate cancer epidemiology is an important health public topic. Data collection related to incidence and mortality is still precarious, especially in less developed countries. It is necessary to follow-up long term screening studies results in order to conclude its benefits.