AbstractIn 2019, the American Cancer Society (ACS) estimates that 174,650 new cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed and 31,620 will die due to the prostate cancer in the United States. Prostate cancer is often managed with aggressive curative intent standard therapies including radiotherapy or surgery. Regardless of how expertly done, these standard therapies often bring significant risk and morbidity to the patient's quality of life with potential impact on sexual, urinary, and bowel functions. Additionally, improved screening programs, using prostatic-specific antigen and transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy, have identified increasing numbers of low-risk, low-grade “localized” prostate cancer. The potential, localized, and indolent nature of many prostate cancers presents a difficult decision of when to intervene, especially within the context of the possible comorbidities of aggressive standard treatments. Active surveillance has been increasingly instituted to balance cancer control versus treatment side effects; however, many patients are not comfortable with this option. Although active debate continues on the suitability of either focal or regional therapy for the low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients, no large consensus has been achieved on the adequate management approach. Some of the largest unresolved issues are prostate cancer multifocality, limitations of current biopsy strategies, suboptimal staging by accepted imaging modalities, less than robust prediction models for indolent prostate cancers, and safety and efficiency of the established curative therapies following focal therapy for prostate cancer. In spite of these restrictions, focal therapy continues to confront the current paradigm of therapy for low- and even intermediate-risk disease. It has been proposed that early detection and proper characterization may play a role in preventing the development of metastatic disease. There is level-1 evidence supporting detection and subsequent aggressive treatment of intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. Therefore, accurate assessment of cancer risk (i.e., grade and stage) using imaging and targeted biopsy is critical. Advances in prostate imaging with MRI and PET are changing the workup for these patients, and advances in MR-guided biopsy and therapy are propelling prostate treatment solutions forward faster than ever.
Focal therapy for prostate cancer: do apical lesions correlate with worse outcomes?
