RESUMO
Radical treatments and active surveillance are valid therapeutic approaches for low-risk prostate cancer. The oncologic effectiveness and morbidity of Radical Prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy have been broadly validated. Focal therapies pursue to reduce the morbidity observed after radical treatments, while preserving the oncologic effectiveness. This study aims to review the state-of-the-art about principles, oncologic effectiveness, morbidity, and side-effects associated with leading focal therapies. We review and summarize articles related with Cryotherapy, High-Intensity Focal Ultrasound (HIFU), Photodynamic Therapy (PDT), and Irreversible Electroporating (IRE) published in MEDLINE from 2000 to 2022. There is a wide heterogeneity in terms of the measurement of effectiveness and morbidity. Hence, comparing different energies, strategies and protocols seem to be unprecise and controversial. Cryosurgery and HIFU have reported more clinical experience than PDT and IRE. Biochemical recurrence rate after the first session varied from 4.5% to 23%, and up to 20% of patients underwent a salvage radical treatment. The reported incidence of erectile disfunction and urinary incontinence ranges from 3% to 50% and 0% to 34%, respectively. None randomized clinical trial comparing any focal therapy to any radical treatment has been published. We conclude that the expansion of focal therapies requires the consolidation of MRI-guided fusion biopsies in everyday clinical practice. Short-term oncologic effectiveness has been proved and supports their usefulness in low-risk patients unfit for surgical treatment. However, long-term effects and the clinical experience in intermediate and high-risk patients remains limited. Currently none of the focal therapies can be considered the Gold Standard for low-risk patients.
