Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5209_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
40 Мб
Скачать
6 Focal Therapy andActive Surveillance ofProstate Cancer: AEuropean Perspective
Table 6.1 Contemporary European active surveillance protocols
Treatment
Institution Inclusion criteria MRI timing Biopsy timing Cambridge
University (UK) [24]
University College London (UK) [9]
Royal Marsden (UK) [25]
Prostate Cancer Research Active Surveillance (PRIAS) [8]
MRI Magnetic resonance imaging, PSA Prostate-Specic Antigen
a
Many European institutions adopt variations of the PRIAS protocol, which are mainly based on the number and
involvement of positive cores, PSA levels at inclusion, as well as the timing of sequential assessments
a
Grade groups 1 and 2, 50% positive cores
Grade groups 1 and 2Baseline, 12months,
Grade groups 1 and 2, 50% positive cores
Grade groups 1 and 2, if MRI is used at inclusion, no limit on disease volume is applied
Every 12months At 12 and 36months Higher grade group,
and according to PSA kinetics and presence/ absence of an index lesion
Not mandatory at the time of publication
Baseline, 12, 48, and 84months, every 5years thereafter
Baseline and conrmatory if discordant baseline MRI, thereafter only for MRI progression
At 18–24months, and every 24months thereafter
At 12, 48, and 84months, every 5years thereafter
recommendation
extraprostatic involvement on MRI
Grade group 3, denitive radiological progression
Grade group 3, or50% of cores involved
Higher grade group, nonorgan-conned disease
65
There are efforts to reduce the number of scheduled biopsies on AS aimed at reducing patient burden related to the procedure, which carry a small but non-negligible risk of complica­tions such as bleeding, infections, and urinary retention. One of the most appealing approaches is the use of sequential MRIs instead of sched­uled biopsies, which relies on the relatively high negative predictive value of a nonsuspicious MRI, typically identied by a PI-RADS score of 1, 2, or 3, in ruling out high-grade cancer [18]. The University College London Hospital (UCLH) AS program relies on sequential MRI assess­ments, with biopsies triggered only by changes in MRI suspicion scores and PSA kinetics [9]. Interestingly, in a cohort of 672 men, the rate of metastases was the same compared to the PRIAS study. However, a lower proportion of men dis­continued AS, plausibly due to the strategy to perform only triggered biopsies [9]. Nonetheless, there is evidence that performing AS biopsies only upon changes in MRI would indeed allow to avoid many procedures, at the cost, however, of missing more than 10% higher-grade cancers [18, 19]. This means that while MRI is accurate enough to predict the progression during AS, it is not sufcient alone, if reassuring, to omit sched-
uled surveillance biopsies. There have been two large consensus meetings on the best practices for AS, the DETECTIVE and the Movember International Consensus Meeting [20, 21]. In both, strong efforts have been carried out to dene the safest way to relieve the burden of repeated biopsies and to optimize disease moni­toring during follow-up. In the 2019 DETECTIVE consensus meeting, the most frequent topics of disagreement were those regarding the quanti­cation of disease volume, especially for GG 2 disease, and the best timing to execute scheduled surveillance biopsies, particularly when consid­ering scenarios including stable or negative MRIs during follow-up [20].
While older AS protocols mandated discon­tinuation also based on adverse PSA kinetics (i.e., PSA doubling time or absolute PSA thresh­olds), there was a strong agreement that such events shall initially trigger further assessment, such as MRIs and biopsies, rather than an imme­diate conversion to denitive treatments. Similar concerns were shared within the 2023 Movember consensus; in fact, there was much disagreement on the best way to measure baseline disease vol­ume, especially considering pathological tumor quantication on biopsy and the size of MRI
66
R. Leni et al.
lesions [21]. Interestingly, novel risk factors for progression, such as genomic testing and family history, were also discussed in the Movember consensus [21]. The panel also concluded that in the presence of favorable features, namely, a sta­ble MRI, low PSA density, and stable PSA kinet­ics, scheduled surveillance biopsies may be omitted after shared decision-making with the patient [21].
In summary, the EAU guidelines provide evidence- based recommendations for the inclu­sion and monitoring of patients with favorable risk PCa on AS [2]. While AS is now the standard of care for low-risk disease, the optimal inclusion criteria, as well as monitoring strategy for patients with intermediate-risk features, are a matter of debate and are yet to be precisely dened [22,
23]. The level of evidence regarding the use of
MRI during follow-up to rule out high-grade PCa on AS is low. Therefore, the guideline panel strongly recommends planning scheduled biop­sies every 2–3years on AS to diagnose progres­sion in a timely manner [2]. The recommendation of forgoing scheduled biopsies if the MRI is non­concerning and PSA density is not strong enough since it only relies on consensus meetings [2, 20,
21].
Focal Therapy: Available Protocols inEurope
Owing to the effects of overdiagnosis and over­treatment in the PSA era, it became crucial to identify management strategies to avoid the side effects of radical-intent treatments with­out compromising the chance of cure [26]. While the oncological safety of AS has been validated in prospective studies with long-term follow-up, the safety and efcacy of FT are currently under investigation [16, 27]. The EAU guidelines, in fact, consider FT as an experimental option for low- and intermediate­risk PCa and recommend against its use in high-risk and locally advanced cases [2]. Many new studies for the primary treatment of local­ized PCa and prospective protocols have been implemented in Europe in the last decade,
spanning from early feasibility studies to more recent prospective comparative studies [12,
28]. The most frequent types of energy used
were HIFU, followed by cryoablation, irrevers­ible electroporation (IRE), and focal laser ablation (FLA), as shown in Table 6.2. Most studies evaluated outcomes in low- and inter­mediate-risk patients and few studies included patients with high-risk features [29]. While most studies focused on early outcomes (i.e., rates of any- or clinically signicant PCa at follow-up biopsies), few of them reported long-term outcomes, including metastases and PCa mortality [30, 31]. When evaluating early outcomes, the majority of protocols included serial PSA measurements and either 6- or 12-month per-protocol MRI and biopsies. Rates of failure, dened either as clinically sig­nicant PCa at biopsies, curative-intent treat­ment, or metastases, spanned from 20% to 30% [28]. It must be noted that the denition of pro­gression was highly variable across studies. Moreover, few studies included more than 100 patients, and these were mostly limited to HIFU. Most studies evaluated functional out­comes at pre-planned time points; while a good recovery of urinary and sexual function was observed in general, it appeared that whole­gland procedures were associated with worse outcomes compared to hemi-gland treatments [32]. Moreover, treatment of apical lesions was associated with higher rates of urinary reten­tion, an adverse effect also typical of transperi­neal prostate biopsy [33, 34]. According to a recent systematic review and meta-analysis, there are 18 currently ongoing prospective tri­als of FT (mainly FLA and HIFU) in Europe, nine of which are actively recruiting [28]. Interestingly, of two of these are randomized controlled trials, the rst one (NCT03531099) is actually comparing HIFU to AS in GG 1 PCa in France, and is expected to terminate accrual in 2026. Another randomized controlled trial ongoing in Norway (NCT03668652) will com­pare oncological and functional outcomes in patients with GG 1 and GG 2 PCa between HIFU or MRI-guided Transurethral Ultrasound Ablation (TULSA) vs RP.
6 Focal Therapy andActive Surveillance ofProstate Cancer: AEuropean Perspective
2year treatment-
free survival:
Follow-up
strategy Key results
Median
follow up
80%
MRI, and BX at
1year
33months PSA q6mo,
GS7,
primary
treatment
NIL NIL Poor accrual
risk PCa
Non-whole
gland HIFU
associated with
fewer adverse
events
1year
12months MRI and bx at
HIFU vs
nonwhole-gland
HIFU
Negative biopsy
at 1year: 95%
Radical
treatment-free
survival at
1year
30months MRI and bx at
GS7,
primary
treatment
2years: 89%
5years
failure-free
survival: 54%
1year
(additional MRI
45months MRI and bx at
GS7,
primary
treatment
5years
cancer-specic
1month after
treatment)
measurements
39.5months Serial PSA
clinically
(continued)
survival 100%,
metastases free
survival 93%
localized PCa
67
cryotherapy
55 HIFU
France 2010–2016 Retrospective,
Study Country Years Type of study Patients Type of energy Incl criteria
Table 6.2 Published studies of FT for primary treatment of localized PCa in Europe
Annoot A, etal.,
82 HIFU vs RP Intermediate-
single-institution
World J Urol,
controlled trial
UK 2014–2017 Randomized
2019 [35]
Hamdy FC,
etal., Health
Technol Assess,
86 HIFU Whole-gland
comparative
Germany 2012–2017 Retrospective,
2018 [36]
Lei Y, etal., J
Endourol, 2019
111 HIFU
institutional
France 2009–2015 Prospective, multi
[37]
Rischmann P,
etal., Eur Urol,
2017 [38]
309 HIFU,
single institution
France 2009–2018 Retrospective,
Tourinho-
Barbosa, etal., J
50 HIFU Unilateral
institution
Belgium 2007–2015 Prospective, single
Urol, 2020 [39]
Van Velthoven R,
etal., Prostate
Cancer Prostatic
dis, 2016 [31]
68
85% without
Follow-up
strategy Key results
Median
follow up
12months MRI and bx at
cancer at rst
subsequent Bx
HIFU
comparable to
6month
localized PCa
36months Serial PSA
(up to GS 4+3)
measurements
clinically
RP in oncologic
control, HIFU
associated with
improved
functional
localized PCa
outcomes
30% rate of
positive bx after
6–12month
14months MRI
Clinically
localized PCa
treatment
37% rate of
positive bx after
treatment
after HIFU, no
scheduled Bx
6month
24months MRI and bx at
(PSA20ng/
mL)
to 4+3,
PSA20ng/
12months Bx at 1year 84% rate of
mL
negative bx after
treatment
clinically
localized PCa
(GS3+4
27% rate of
positive bx after
treatment
positive biopsy
1year
17months MRI and bx at
38months Bx at 1year 29% rate of
clinically
localized PCa
GS3+4,
PSA 15ng/
R. Leni et al.
after treatment
further treatment
after HIFU
30months MRI at 1year 86% free of any
mL
to 4+3,
PSA20ng/
mL
Study Country Years Type of study Patients Type of energy Incl criteria
Table 6.2 (continued)
56 HIFU Clinically
UK 2009–2011 Prospective, single
Ahmed HU,
55 HIFU vs RP Unilateral
institution
Belgium 2007–2015 Comparative,
etal., Eur Urol,
2015 [40]
Albissinni S,
propensity score
matched
etal., J Endourol,
2017 [41]
CEUS)
32 HIFU (MRI vs
institutional
Switzerland 2014–2020 Prospective, multi
Bacchetta F,
etal., Urol
118 HIFU cT1-T3, GS up
UK 2009–2017 Prospective, multi
Oncol, 2020 [42]
Dickinson L,
institution
etal., Urol
Oncol, 2017 [43]
67 HIFU Unilateral
institution
France 2009–2013 Prospective, single
Fejoo ERC,
etal., Eur Urol,
2016 [44]
or cryotherapy
51 HIFU Unilateral
Germany 2013–2016 Prospective, multi
Ganzer R, etal.,
236 HIFU (n=188)
institutional
J Urol, 2018 [45]
propensity score
France 2009–2015 Comparative,
Garcia-Barreras
S, etal., J Urol,
(n=48) vs RP
107 HIFU cT1-T3, GS up
matched
institution
UK 2009–2019 Prospective, single
2018 [46]
Johnston MJ,
etal., Urology,
2019 [47]
6 Focal Therapy andActive Surveillance ofProstate Cancer: AEuropean Perspective
6month bx (all
patients
underwent
super-extended
sampling)
38% cancer
relapse at
follow-up bx
from any further
treatment: 59%
Treatment regret
in 21% of
patients
signicantly
decreased at 1
month, but
increased at 12
month
7-year failure-
free- survival
69%
Follow-up
strategy Key results
Median
follow up
18months Bx at 6month 41% csPCa at
localized PCa,
GS4+3,
PSA15ng/
mL
6–12month
12months MRI and bx at
36months MRI at 1year 5year freedom
localized PCa
to 4+3,
38months MRI and bx at
PSA20ng/
mL
6–12month
12months Site-specic IIEF-EF
intermediate-
risk PCa
localized PCa,
GS4+3,
PSA15ng/
mL
q3-6month,
MRI at
32months PSA
radiological
stage up to
No residual PCa
6–12month,
biopsy if
suspicious MRI
12months 6month MRI,
T3bN0M0
(continued)
detected at
follow-up
12 month biopsy
intermediate-
risk PCa,
PI-RADS 4–5
69
75 HIFU Clinically
institution
Switzerland 2014–2018 Prospective, single
Study Country Years Type of study Patients Type of energy Incl criteria
Mortezavi A,
etal., J Urol,
21 HIFU Clinically
Germany 2015–2018 Prospective, single
2019 [48]
Rosenhammer B,
1032 HIFU cT1-T3, GS up
institution
etal., Urol Int,
2019 [49]
UK 2005–2017 Prospective, multi
Stabile A, etal.,
institutional
BJU Int, 2019
[50]
52 HIFU Low- and
Germany 2014–2019 Prospective, multi
Westhof N, etal.,
118 HIFU Clinically
institutional
World J Urol,
UK 2009–2013 Prospective, multi
2021 [51]
Yap T, etal., Eur
institutional
Urol, 2016 [52]
1379 HIFU Gleason 6–9,
(analysis of three
trials)
multi-institutional
UK 2005–2020 Prospective,
Reddy D, etal.,
Eur Urol, 2022
9 Brachytherapy Low- or
institution
Germany 2020 Prospective, single
[53]
Fischbach F,
etal., Eur Radiol,
2020 [54]
70
No recurrence
observed at 1
year
Treatment
relapse in one
patient
4years
recurrence-free
survival 70%,
metastases free
survival 93%,
overall survival
100%
5years
relapse-free
survival: 89%
Apical lesions
associated with
worse functional
outcomes
20% treatment
failure
correlation
between
pre-treatment
tumor volume
and post-
operative
R. Leni et al.
necrotic volume
at MRI
Follow-up
strategy Key results
Median
follow up
12months MRI and bx at
17 Brachytherapy Single
12month
PI-RADS 3–5
lesion,
institution
24months
24months MRI and bx at
GS3+4
GS4+3,
PSA15ng/
30 Brachytherapy
institution
according to
48months MRI and bx
mL
GS7,
PSA10ng/
30 Brachytherapy
institution
imaging results
mL
follow-up, no
planned biopsies
32months MRI during
GS7,
50 Brachytherapy
6months Study focused
unilateral
disease
28 Brachytherapy Clinically
institution
on functional
outcomes
localized PCa
single institution,
comparative
6month
20months MRI and bx at
GS3+4,
PSA15ng/
mL
electroporation
30 Irreversible
institution
16months MRI at 6month Signicant
Clinically
localized PCa
electroporation
30 Irreversible
single institution
Study Country Years Type of study Patients Type of energy Incl criteria
Table 6.2 (continued)
France 2013–2016 Prospective, single
Graff P, etal., Int
J Radiat Oncol
biol Phy2, 2018
[55]
UK 2014–2016 Prospective, single
Langley S, etal.,
Netherlands 2013–2016 Prospective, single
BJU Int, 2020
[56]
Peters M, etal.,
Int J Radiat
Oncol Biol Phys,
2019 [30]
Spain 2013–2017 Prospective, single
Prada JP, etal.,
Strahlenther
Onkol, 2020 [57]
France 2017 Retrospective,
Srougi V, etal.,
Brachytherapy,
2017 [33]
Germany 2014–2017 Prospective, single
Collettini F,
etal., Radiology,
2019 [58]
UK 2011–2016 Retrospective,
Giganti F, etal.,
Magn Reson
Imaging, 2019
[59]
6 Focal Therapy andActive Surveillance ofProstate Cancer: AEuropean Perspective
No signicant
differences in
functional
outcomes
between
diagnosis and
follow-up
Residual csPCa
in 33% of
patients
Similar
oncologic
outcomes
between
whole-gland vs
hemi-crio
ablation
Failure-free
survival 85% for
high-risk, 93%
for intermediate
risk, at 3years
2years
progression-free
survival 28% for
PDT vs 58% for
Follow-up
strategy Key results
outcomes serial
Median
follow up
measurements
6months Functional
Clinically
localized PCa
6month
12months MRI and bx at
Clinically
localized PCa
specic
41months Institution
low- to
intermediate-
risk PCa
for cause
biopsies
28months Scheduled MRI,
and high-risk
PCa
12month
Low risk PCa 24months Biopsy at
AS
Successful
ablation in 75%
of cases at 3year
follow-up
6month
Low-risk PCa 42months Biopsy at
71
(continued)
electroporation
60 Irreversible
institution
Netherlands 2013–2016 Prospective, single
Study Country Years Type of study Patients Type of energy Incl criteria
Scheltema MJ,
etal., Diagn
Interv Radiol,
electroporation
19 Irreversible
UK 2013–2015 Prospective, single
2018 [60]
Valerio M, etal.,
66 Cryotherapy Unilateral
institution
Spain 2010–2018 Prospective, single
J Urol, 2017 [61]
Bossier R, etal.,
institution
Actas Urol Esp
(Engl Ed), 2020
[32]
105 Cryotherapy Intermediate-
multiinstitutional
UK 2013–2016 Prospective,
Shah TT, etal.,
Eur Urol, 2019
[29]
Photodynamic
therapy, active
surveillance
206
PDT
205
AS
controlled trial
2011–2013 Randomized
France,
Netherland,
Germany,
Spain,
Finland, UK,
Azzouzi AR,
etal., Lancet
Oncol, 2017 [62]
therapy
68 Photodynamic
institutional
2008–2014 Prospective, multi
Sweden
Germany,
France, UK
Noweski A,
etal., Eur Urol
Focus, 2019 [63]
72
80% recurrence
Follow-up
strategy Key results
Median
follow up
12months Early MRI, then
Single focus of
free at follow-up
biopsy
30% of patients
MRI at 6 and
12months;
biopsy if relapse
12months MRI and bx at
GS3+4
PCa patients
recurrence-free
at follow-up
MRI
6month
under active
surveillance
R. Leni et al.
Study Country Years Type of study Patients Type of energy Incl criteria
Table 6.2 (continued)
focal ablation
20 Radiofrequency
institution
UK 2015–2017 Prospective, single
Orczyk C, etal.,
J Urol, 2021 [64]
10 Unilateral
France 2018–2019 Prospective, single
Frandon J, etal.,
Prostatic Artery
Embolization
institution
J Vasc Interv
Radiol, 2021 [65]
HIFU high-intensity focused ultrasounds, GS Gleason Score, PSA prostate-specic antigen, MRI magnetic resonance imaging; Bx biopsy, UK United Kingdom, RP radical
prostatectomy, PCa prostate cancer, CEUS contrast enhanced ultrasounds, IIEF-EF International Index of Erectile Function, PI-RADS Pro state Imaging Reporting and Data
System; csPCa: Clinically signicant PCa
6 Focal Therapy andActive Surveillance ofProstate Cancer: AEuropean Perspective
73
European Perspective ofFocal Therapy forLocalized PCa
Recently, the EAU Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Prostate Cancer Working Party held a comprehensive cross-sectional survey among specialists in urology from nine European uro­logical associations [66]. Among respondents, the majority were high-volume urologists work­ing at academic institutions. Key ndings included at least three major areas of interest: awareness of FT as a treatment option for local­ized PCa, optimal patient selection and treatment delivery, and the need for high-level evidence in support of its application [66]. There have been numerous consensus conferences in the past decade aimed at dening the optimal candidate for FT, where the main respondents’ expertise was cryotherapy, photodynamic therapy, and HIFU [6769]. While historically, FT has emerged as an alternative to AS in patients with low-risk PCa, a recent consensus recommends limiting FT indications to the intermediate-risk setting, considering the potential risk of over­treatment of men with low-risk disease [68]. A general agreement was reached in dening the index lesion as the main target to deliver FT, with however some respondents suggesting the need to treat all PCa foci observed on biopsy or MRI [66]. The most crucial area of interest was identi­ed in the consensus reached on the need for stronger high-level evidence supporting the safety of FT at long-term follow-up. Indeed, only one randomized controlled trial (RCT), con­ducted in ten European countries, evaluated the outcomes of FT with vascular-targeted photo­therapy (VTP) vs AS, showing a higher risk of receiving curative-intent treatment at 2years in patients managed with AS [70]. However, it must be noted that only patients with low-risk, low­volume PCa were included in this trial, not repre­senting the ideal setting of FT in 2023, thus limiting the generalizability of its result to patients with favorable intermediate-risk PCa [70]. Signicant uncertainty regarding the poten-
tial low accrual rate of RCTs involving FT as an experimental arm arose in the last decade, as experienced with the Partial Ablation versus Radical Therapy (PART) phase 3 trial, where only 30% of eligible patients agreed to undergo randomization, and 20% of those assigned to RP refused treatment allocation [36]. Nonetheless, further trials are ongoing in Europe in the eld of FT for localized PCa, and novel two-staged con­sensus procedures for RCT allocation are cur­rently under evaluation and appear promising in improving patient accrual for clinical trials in urology [28, 71].
In conclusion, in Europe, we observed a wide­spread diffusion of FT, and prospective protocols are ongoing to further establish its long-term oncological safety. Among European urologists, a relative majority stated they would suggest FT to selected patients [66]. However, a general con­sensus has been reached on the need for robust long-term oncologic outcome results before implementing FT in the clinical practice for the management of localized PCa; in fact, although several studies have been published, very few of them provided long-term results [28, 69]. Moreover, the majority of clinical evidence gath­ered to inform treatment decision-making derives from studies of HIFU; different types of energies, such as IRE and FLA, have been studied without, however, generating sufcient data to provide recommendations [28]. At last, only one study reported outcomes for patients with high-risk PCa, with a failure-free survival of approximately 85% at a three-year follow-up [29]. To date and considering the available evidence, the EAU guidelines acknowledge that FT has a favorable side-effects prole and recommend against its use in high-risk and locally advanced PCa cases while suggesting its applicability in the low- and intermediate-risk setting only within prospective registries or clinical trials [2]. In particular, HIFU and cryotherapy shall be offered only in the con­text of a prospective registry, while all other options shall be delivered only within well­designed prospective trials [2].
74
R. Leni et al.
Active Surveillance andFocal Therapy: Adherence inEurope
While there is solid evidence that the uptake of AS is increasing in the United States, such data are scarce in Europe, mainly due to the lack of a centralized data reporting system for patients diagnosed with PCa [72]. Nordic countries have historically relied on solid nationwide databases that can help answer the question of how many patients with low-grade PCa are managed with AS. In a recent population-based study in Sweden, more than 90% of patients with very low-risk PCa and more than 70% of those with low-risk PCa were initially managed with AS from 2011 to 2014 [6]. Further evidence from the Danish Prostate Registry, another solid nationwide database, shows similar rates of uptake of AS for men with GG 1 PCa [73]. Of note, both Swedish and Danish gures are simi­lar to the proportion and trend of men initially managed with AS in the United States [72]. Considering that FT indications varied in the last decade, and current guidelines consider this approach experimental, there is no solid data on the uptake of this form of treatment worldwide. For the same reason, since monitoring strategies after delivery differ at an institutional level, it is difcult to determine rates of adherence, as well the rates of treatment failure, in patients treated with FT. It is established that long-term onco­logic outcomes after AS are excellent, with almost no patients dying of PCa and very few developing distant metastases [8, 16]. Long­term outcomes of FT are not yet established since many patients may undergo repeated FT sessions, and eventually receive any form of radical salvage treatments, such as RP and RT [50, 53]. Nonetheless, approximately 25–50% of patients with low-, intermediate-, or high-risk PCa had a failure at a 5-year follow-up in two large UK cohorts, with failure dened as a tran­sition to salvage whole-gland treatment, metas­tases, or PCa mortality [50, 53]. When considering only the transition to radical forms of treatment, less than 20% were treated after FT delivery in a UK cohort [50]. Of note, there are overlaps of monitoring strategy after FT
delivery and AS, both scenarios, in fact, involve the use of sequential MRI assessments and sur­veillance biopsies [8, 50]. However, adherence is better studied within AS, where solid long­term outcomes allow for the evaluation of long­term adherence to repeated testing and surveillance biopsies [74]. In a study from the Movember GAP 3 consortium, the long-term adherence to surveillance biopsies decreased over time, ranging from approximately 90% at a 1-year follow- up to approximately 40% at a longer-term follow-up [74].

Conclusions

Overtreatment in PCa led to the introduction of strategies aimed at reducing treatment-related side effects [28]. AS and FT emerged as promis­ing modalities capable of reducing the morbidity burden of RP and RT [2]. While AS aims at delaying or avoiding treatment at all, FT aims at delivering different forms of energy to control the index lesion of PCa, thus reducing treatment side effects as well [28]. Long-term results of AS have demonstrated its safety in selected, contemporary patients with favorable risk PCa. However, there are no long-term data on the safety of FT [53]. Further research shall establish both the best FT candidate and the optimal surveillance strategy after initial energy delivery. Novel imaging modalities, such as prostate-specic membrane antigen (PSMA) PET, along with rened meth­ods to quantify the total amount of pattern four in biopsy specimens, will aid clinicians in nding the right place for FT in the context of de­intensied treatment modalities for early-stage PCa [75].

References

1. Van Poppel H, Roobol MJ, Chapple CR, Catto JWF, N’Dow J, Sønksen J, et al. Prostate-specic anti­gen testing as part of a risk-adapted early detection strategy for prostate cancer: European Association of Urology Position and Recommendations for 2021. Eur Urol. 2021;80:703–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eururo.2021.07.024.