Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 May 1;32(3):260-266.
doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000988. Epub 2022 Mar 11.

Assessment after focal therapy: what is the latest?

Affiliations
Review

Assessment after focal therapy: what is the latest?

Srinath Kotamarti et al. Curr Opin Urol. .

Abstract

Purpose of review: To review assessment after focal therapy (FT) in the context of developments from the past two years.

Recent findings: With a paucity of high-quality studies, recent findings are primarily reliant on results from institutional-based cohorts and reports of expert consensus. Notably, oncologic treatment failure should be further stratified into recurrence in the in-field or out-of-field ablation zone, and both regions should be surveilled postoperatively. Monitoring primarily consists of periodic evaluations of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and magnetic resonance imaging, with histologic sampling needed to confirm suspicion of recurrence. Recent investigations into PSA derivatives, contrast-enhanced ultrasound, and prostate-specific membrane antigen imaging have shown preliminary promise. Although postablation functional outcomes are generally accepted to be excellent, they are limited by the wide range of patient-reported measures, variability in individual practice, and low questionnaire completion rates.

Summary: There is still a need for high-level, long-term data to inform exact standardized protocols to manage patients after FT. A multifaceted approach is required to surveil patients and identify those at risk of recurrence. Embracing shared responsibility between the patient and clinician to fastidiously monitor the infield and out-of-field ablation zones postoperatively is critical to maximize oncologic outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. de la Rosette JJMCH, Sanchez Salas R, Rastinehad A, Polascik TJ. Imaging and technologies for prostate cancer. Where are we now-where do we go? World J Urol 2021; 39:635–636.
    1. Tay KJ, Amin MB, Ghai S, et al. Surveillance after prostate focal therapy. World J Urol 2019; 37:397–407.
    1. Lebastchi AH, George AK, Polascik TJ, et al. Standardized nomenclature and surveillance methodologies after focal therapy and partial gland ablation for localized prostate cancer: an international multidisciplinary consensus. Eur Urol 2020; 78:371–378.
    1. van Luijtelaar A, Greenwood BM, Ahmed HU, et al. Focal laser ablation as clinical treatment of prostate cancer: report from a Delphi consensus project. World J Urol 2019; 37:2147–2153.
    1. Kayano PP, Klotz L. Current evidence for focal therapy and partial gland ablation for organ-confined prostate cancer: systematic review of literature published in the last 2 years. Curr Opin Urol 2021; 31:49–57.

Substances