Cryotherapy versus high-intensity focused ultrasound for treating prostate cancer: Oncological and functional results

Abstract

Context and objectiveThe increasingly early diagnosis of prostate cancer requires a search for therapeutic alternatives with good oncological results that in turn facilitate a good long-term quality of life. This review analyses 2 minimally invasive therapies for treating localized prostate cancer in terms of oncological and functional results, as well as the complications resulting from the therapies. Acquisition of evidenceA systematic literature review was conducted of the treatment of localized prostate cancer with 2 ablative techniques as the primary therapy: cryosurgery or cryotherapy and high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). We included patients who underwent procedures that included the entire gland, with hemiablation or focal therapy, which were indicated for low to intermediate-risk prostate cancer according to the D’Amico criteria. We excluded patients with high-risk prostate cancer and those who underwent any prior treatment for prostate cancer. Synthesis of the evidenceAfter conducting the literature search and excluding the studies that did not meet the protocol criteria, we reviewed a total of 14 studies, with a total of 350 patients treated using cryotherapy and 1107 treated with HIFU. All studies were either prospective or retrospective and were not randomized. The patients’ mean age was younger than 75 years.Overall, the rate of disease recurrence in the patients treated with cryotherapy varied between 13.2% and 26%, while the rate for those treated with HIFU varied between 7.3% and 67.9%. The overall demonstrated continence at 12 months was 97.6–100% for cryotherapy and 96–100% for HIFU. In terms of sexual potency rates, cryotherapy showed complete potency at 12 months for 86–100% of the patients treated with focal cryotherapy and slightly lower rates for hemiablation (76.9–100%) and total therapy (39%). HIFU showed potency rates of 89%, 52–80% and 33–78% for focal therapy, hemiablation and total therapy, respectively. ConclusionsBoth techniques have comparable functional results, although the somewhat poorer oncological results for HIFU reflect a steeper learning curve, which could lead to its use in centers with high volumes of patients.