Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/11792
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorValerio, Massimoen
dc.contributor.authorAhmed, Hashim Uen
dc.contributor.authorEmberton, Marken
dc.contributor.authorLawrentschuk, Nathanen
dc.contributor.authorLazzeri, Massimoen
dc.contributor.authorMontironi, Rodolfoen
dc.contributor.authorNguyen, Paul Len
dc.contributor.authorTrachtenberg, Johnen
dc.contributor.authorPolascik, Thomas Jen
dc.date.accessioned2015-05-16T01:25:12Z
dc.date.available2015-05-16T01:25:12Z
dc.date.issued2013-06-06en
dc.identifier.citationEuropean Urology 2013; 66(4): 732-51en
dc.identifier.govdoc23769825en
dc.identifier.otherPUBMEDen
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/11792en
dc.description.abstractThe incidence of localised prostate cancer is increasing worldwide. In light of recent evidence, current, radical, whole-gland treatments for organ-confined disease have being questioned with respect to their side effects, cancer control, and cost. Focal therapy may be an effective alternative strategy.To systematically review the existing literature on baseline characteristics of the target population; preoperative evaluation to localise disease; and perioperative, functional, and disease control outcomes following focal therapy.Medline (through PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Review databases were searched from inception to 31 October 2012. In addition, registered but not yet published trials were retrieved. Studies evaluating tissue-preserving therapies in men with biopsy-proven prostate cancer in the primary or salvage setting were included.A total of 2350 cases were treated to date across 30 studies. Most studies were retrospective with variable standards of reporting, although there was an increasing number of prospective registered trials. Focal therapy was mainly delivered to men with low and intermediate disease, although some high-risk cases were treated that had known, unilateral, significant cancer. In most of the cases, biopsy findings were correlated to specific preoperative imaging, such as multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging or Doppler ultrasound to determine eligibility. Follow-up varied between 0 and 11.1 yr. In treatment-naïve prostates, pad-free continence ranged from 95% to 100%, erectile function ranged from 54% to 100%, and absence of clinically significant cancer ranged from 83% to 100%. In focal salvage cases for radiotherapy failure, the same outcomes were achieved in 87.2-100%, 29-40%, and 92% of cases, respectively. Biochemical disease-free survival was reported using a number of definitions that were not validated in the focal-therapy setting.Our systematic review highlights that, when focal therapy is delivered with intention to treat, the perioperative, functional, and disease control outcomes are encouraging within a short- to medium-term follow-up. Focal therapy is a strategy by which the overtreatment burden of the current prostate cancer pathway could be reduced, but robust comparative effectiveness studies are now required.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subject.otherBrachytherapyen
dc.subject.otherCryotherapyen
dc.subject.otherHigh-intensity focused ultrasounden
dc.subject.otherLaser therapyen
dc.subject.otherPhotodynamic therapyen
dc.subject.otherProstate canceren
dc.titleThe role of focal therapy in the management of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.journaltitleEuropean Urologyen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Surgery, University of Melbourne; and Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, University Health Network; and Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canadaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UKen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Urology, University College Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UKen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, LaUSAnne, Switzerlanden
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Centre, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USAen
dc.identifier.affiliationDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, and Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Centre, Durham, NC, USAen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Urology, Ospedale San Raffaele Turro, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.en
dc.identifier.affiliationSection of Pathological Anatomy, Polytechnic University of the Marche Region, School of Medicine, United Hospitals, Ancona, Italy.en
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.048en
dc.description.pages732-51en
dc.relation.urlhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23769825en
dc.type.austinJournal Articleen
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

10
checked on Mar 28, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.