Faced with the dilemma of choosing between the extremes of standard whole gland therapy and active surveillance, those affected by prostate cancer have recently been on the lookout for less invasive alternatives.
Particularly the question of whether it would be possible in low risk cancer to treat only the tumour itself while sparing the organ has long been considered. This article discusses the pros and cons of focal treatment and elucidates the latest innovative technologies. High over-treatment rates in low-risk patients submitted to standard therapy and considerable technological advances in diagnosis (particularly multiparametric MRI) and therapy are regarded by the authors as key arguments for abandoning complete tumour eradication with its side effects in favour of sufficient local cancer control by focal treatment with better preserved quality of life in suitable cases.
Written by:
Schostak M, Köllermann J, Hadaschik B, Blana A, Ganzer R, Henkel T, Köhrmann KU, Liehr UB, Machtens S, Roosen A, Salomon G, Sentker L, Witzsch U, Schlemmer HP, Baumunk D. Are you the author?
Klinik für Urologie und Kinderurologie, Universitätsklinikum Magdeburg;MVZ Hanse Histologikum, Schwerpunkt Uropathologie, Hamburg; Urologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg; Klinik für Urologie und Kinderurologie, Klinikum Fürth; Urologische Klinik und Poliklinik der Universität Leipzig; Urologische Praxis Dr. Henkel & Dr. Kahmann, Berlin; Klinik für Urologie, Theresienkrankenhaus Mannheim; Klinik für Urologie, Marienkrankenhaus Bergisch-Gladbach; Urologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Klinikum Großhadern, München; Martini-Klinik am UKE GmbH, Hamburg; Urologische Gemeinschaftspraxis, Sinsheim; Klinik für Urologie und Kinderurologie, Krankenhaus Nordwest, Frankfurt/Main; Abteilung für Radiologie des Deutschen Krebsforschungszentrums Heidelberg.
Reference: Aktuelle Urol. 2015 Jan;46(1):39-44.
doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1396803
PubMed Abstract
PMID: 25658230
Article in German.