Focal therapy for prostate cancer: what is really needed to move from investigational to valid therapeutic alternative?-a narrative review.

Abstract

Background and ObjectiveThe most widely accepted therapeutic alternatives for men with intermediate risk prostate cancer (PCa) are mainly represented by whole gland therapies such as surgery or radiotherapy. However, these treatments can carry in some cases profound functional side effects. With the improvement of risk assessment tools and imaging modalities, in particular with the introduction of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate, a fine topographic characterisation of PCa lesions within the prostatic gland is now possible. This has allowed the development of gland-sparing therapies such as focal therapy (FT) as a means to provide an even more tailored approach in order to safely reduce, where feasible, the harms carried by whole gland therapies. Unfortunately, adoption of FT has been considered so far investigational due to some unsolved issues that currently hamper the use of FT as a valid alternative. Here, we aim to identify the main aspects needed to move FT forward from investigational to a valid therapeutic alternative for clinically localized PCa.MethodsThe literature discussing the evolution of focal therapy in the years and its current landscape was broadly searched to identify the factors hindering FT adoption and possible solutions.Key Content and FindingsThere are three broad areas hindering FT as a valid therapeutic alternative: (I) Correct patient selection; (II) harmonising the different FT technologies; (III) the lack of oncological outcomes.ConclusionsBy targeting the three aforementioned weaknesses of FT, greater adoption is expected, finally making FT a valid therapeutic alternative, potentially reshaping prostate cancer treatment and functional outcomes.