Functional outcomes and safety of focal therapy for prostate cancer: a systematic review on results and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Abstract

Focal therapy (FT) is a promising alternative with curative intent for Low- to Intermediate-risk localized Prostate Cancer (PCa), claiming better functional outcomes and safety profile than standard whole-gland treatments. Ten different FT modalities have been described in the literature. The objective of our narrative review is to evaluate the safety profile and functional outcomes of these different modalities and the currentmost used tools of assessment for those outcomes. Literature search was performed on 21stFebruary 2023 using PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA). Articles reporting whole-gland treatments were excluded. All articles reporting functional outcomes were included. One-hundred-seven studies, reporting data on 6933 patients, were included (26 on High Intensity Focal Ultrasound, 22 on Focal Cryotherapy, 14 on Irreversible Electroporation, 11 on Focal brachytherapy, 10 on Focal Laser Ablation, 8 on Photodynamic Therapy, 3 on Microwave ablation, 3 on Robotic Partial Prostatectomy, 2 on bipolar Radio Frequency Ablation, 1 on Prostatic Artery Embolization, and 7 studies comparing different FTs). Post-operative pad-free rate ranged between 92.3-100%. Greater heterogeneity exists considering the Change in Erectile Function, with Changing in Erectile function- rates ranging between 0-94.4% (Cryotherapy). The most used Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) were the International Prostate Symptom Score and the International Index of Erectile Function for incontinence/urinary function and potency, respectively. The most common reportedcomplications were hematuria, infections, and urethral strictures, with rates widely ranging among different treatments. The Clavien-Dindo Classification was the most used (40/88 papers) to describe adverse events. FT is a promising treatment for localized PCa, achieving excellent results in terms of safety and functional outcomes. There is a wide heterogeneity in the definition of PROMS and time of collection between studies. High quality comparative studies with standard treatments are needed to reinforce these findings.