Cargando…

Radical prostatectomy specimens – a voice against focal therapy

INTRODUCTION: The main treatment methods of prostate carcinoma are surgery and radiation therapy, both having serious side effects. Because of these side effects, the idea of organ preserving therapy emerged. Rationale to perform focal therapy is to preserve the prostate gland, along with potency an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Adamczyk, Przemysław, Tworkiewicz, Jakub, Drewa, Tomasz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Polish Urological Association 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4165678/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25247079
http://dx.doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2014.03.art5
_version_ 1782335134504058880
author Adamczyk, Przemysław
Tworkiewicz, Jakub
Drewa, Tomasz
author_facet Adamczyk, Przemysław
Tworkiewicz, Jakub
Drewa, Tomasz
author_sort Adamczyk, Przemysław
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The main treatment methods of prostate carcinoma are surgery and radiation therapy, both having serious side effects. Because of these side effects, the idea of organ preserving therapy emerged. Rationale to perform focal therapy is to preserve the prostate gland, along with potency and continence, offering good cancer control with appropriate treatment. The idea of gland sparing therapy is quite controversial. Presently, EAU Guidelines propose focal therapy as experimental in the treatment of prostate carcinoma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The aim of the study was to asses how many patients could be qualified for focal therapy, according to post prostatectomy pathological findings. 720 patients suspected of prostate cancer were biopsied. In 324 patients, prostate carcinoma was revealed, of which 81 were subjected to radical prostatectomy. Pre and post–operative pathological results were analyzed, according to possible qualification for focal treatment. RESULTS: According to the clinical evaluation of all the patients referred to the treatment, 25% could be assumed to have unifocal disease and could be qualified to the focal treatment. Post–operative evaluation revealed pT2b cancer in 5%, pT2c disease in 65%, and pT3a–pT4a disease in 20% of these patients. Cancer was unilateral (pT2a–b) in only 15% of cases, and was suitable for focal treatment (small disease not extending to whole lobe– pT2a disease) in only 10%. CONCLUSIONS: It seems that with the use of current methods, proper T–staging of the disease and amount of neoplasmatic tissue inside the gland can not be reached with great certainty. In our opinion, focal therapy should not be used in patients with ≤pT2b and high risk disease. For them, radical treatment (surgery or radiation therapy) should be recommended. For the rest of the patients, with low risk disease, keeping in mind the large scale of possible overtreatment, active surveillance is a valid treatment option. Focal therapy can be an interesting therapeutic proposition for a small group of patients with pT2a cancer, but it is not possible to select them with big certainty with current methods of imaging medicine.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4165678
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Polish Urological Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41656782014-09-22 Radical prostatectomy specimens – a voice against focal therapy Adamczyk, Przemysław Tworkiewicz, Jakub Drewa, Tomasz Cent European J Urol Original Paper INTRODUCTION: The main treatment methods of prostate carcinoma are surgery and radiation therapy, both having serious side effects. Because of these side effects, the idea of organ preserving therapy emerged. Rationale to perform focal therapy is to preserve the prostate gland, along with potency and continence, offering good cancer control with appropriate treatment. The idea of gland sparing therapy is quite controversial. Presently, EAU Guidelines propose focal therapy as experimental in the treatment of prostate carcinoma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The aim of the study was to asses how many patients could be qualified for focal therapy, according to post prostatectomy pathological findings. 720 patients suspected of prostate cancer were biopsied. In 324 patients, prostate carcinoma was revealed, of which 81 were subjected to radical prostatectomy. Pre and post–operative pathological results were analyzed, according to possible qualification for focal treatment. RESULTS: According to the clinical evaluation of all the patients referred to the treatment, 25% could be assumed to have unifocal disease and could be qualified to the focal treatment. Post–operative evaluation revealed pT2b cancer in 5%, pT2c disease in 65%, and pT3a–pT4a disease in 20% of these patients. Cancer was unilateral (pT2a–b) in only 15% of cases, and was suitable for focal treatment (small disease not extending to whole lobe– pT2a disease) in only 10%. CONCLUSIONS: It seems that with the use of current methods, proper T–staging of the disease and amount of neoplasmatic tissue inside the gland can not be reached with great certainty. In our opinion, focal therapy should not be used in patients with ≤pT2b and high risk disease. For them, radical treatment (surgery or radiation therapy) should be recommended. For the rest of the patients, with low risk disease, keeping in mind the large scale of possible overtreatment, active surveillance is a valid treatment option. Focal therapy can be an interesting therapeutic proposition for a small group of patients with pT2a cancer, but it is not possible to select them with big certainty with current methods of imaging medicine. Polish Urological Association 2014-08-18 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC4165678/ /pubmed/25247079 http://dx.doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2014.03.art5 Text en Copyright by Polish Urological Association http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Adamczyk, Przemysław
Tworkiewicz, Jakub
Drewa, Tomasz
Radical prostatectomy specimens – a voice against focal therapy
title Radical prostatectomy specimens – a voice against focal therapy
title_full Radical prostatectomy specimens – a voice against focal therapy
title_fullStr Radical prostatectomy specimens – a voice against focal therapy
title_full_unstemmed Radical prostatectomy specimens – a voice against focal therapy
title_short Radical prostatectomy specimens – a voice against focal therapy
title_sort radical prostatectomy specimens – a voice against focal therapy
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4165678/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25247079
http://dx.doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2014.03.art5
work_keys_str_mv AT adamczykprzemysław radicalprostatectomyspecimensavoiceagainstfocaltherapy
AT tworkiewiczjakub radicalprostatectomyspecimensavoiceagainstfocaltherapy
AT drewatomasz radicalprostatectomyspecimensavoiceagainstfocaltherapy