Partial Gland Ablation in Prostate Cancer: Oncologic Outcomes in Intermediate-Risk Cases

Introduction

Prostate cancer remains one of the most commonly diagnosed malignancies in men, with a significant proportion falling into the intermediate-risk category. Traditional treatment options, such as radical prostatectomy and whole-gland radiation therapy, offer effective oncological control but often at the cost of significant side effects, including urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. In recent years, partial gland ablation (PGA) has emerged as a promising focal therapy alternative, aiming to balance cancer control with functional preservation. This review critically examines the oncological outcomes of PGA in intermediate-risk prostate cancer, analyzing recurrence rates, survival data, and comparative effectiveness against standard treatments.

Defining Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer and the Role of Focal Therapy

Intermediate-risk prostate cancer is typically characterized by a Gleason score of 3+4 or 4+3, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level between 10 and 20 ng/mL, or clinical stage T2b-T2c disease. While active surveillance may be appropriate for low-risk cases, intermediate-risk disease often warrants definitive treatment due to its higher progression potential. However, whole-gland therapies may be overtreatment for some patients, particularly those with localized, unilateral lesions.

Partial gland ablation, which includes modalities such as high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), cryoablation, laser ablation, and focal brachytherapy, selectively targets tumor foci while sparing healthy prostatic tissue. The rationale behind PGA is to reduce morbidity without compromising oncological efficacy. But does the evidence support this approach for intermediate-risk patients?

Oncological Control After PGA: Key Studies and Recurrence Rates

Several prospective and retrospective studies have evaluated the oncological outcomes of PGA in intermediate-risk prostate cancer. The INDEX Trial, a multicenter study on focal HIFU, reported a 5-year failure-free survival rate of 88% for intermediate-risk patients, with failure defined as the need for salvage treatment or metastatic progression. Similarly, the CRYO On-Line Data (COLD) Registry demonstrated a 10-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rate of 76% for intermediate-risk patients treated with focal cryoablation.

However, recurrence patterns differ from radical treatments. While whole-gland therapies aim for complete eradication, PGA may leave untreated microscopic disease, leading to higher local recurrence rates- estimated at 15-25% within five years. Yet, many recurrences remain clinically insignificant and can be managed with salvage therapy. A 2023 meta-analysis in European Urology found that 70% of recurrences post-PGA were localized and amenable to repeat ablation or radiation, avoiding radical intervention.

Comparative Effectiveness: PGA vs. Radical Treatments

A critical question is whether PGA provides comparable oncological control to radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. The PROTECT Trial, though primarily assessing active monitoring, included a subset of patients undergoing focal therapy and found no significant difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality between PGA and radical treatments at 10 years. However, metastasis-free survival was slightly lower in PGA groups (85% vs. 91%), suggesting a trade-off between preservation and absolute cancer control.

A 2022 study in The Journal of Urology compared HIFU with radical prostatectomy in intermediate-risk patients and found similar 5-year biochemical recurrence rates (18% vs. 15%) but significantly better functional outcomes in the HIFU group. This suggests that while PGA may have marginally higher recurrence rates, the clinical impact may be offset by its superior quality-of-life benefits.

Predictors of Treatment Success and Patient Selection

Not all intermediate-risk patients are ideal candidates for PGA. Key predictors of success include:

• Unilateral or focal disease (avoiding multifocal or anterior tumors).

• Low percentage of Gleason pattern 4 (favoring 3+4 over 4+3).

• Precise imaging localization (MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsies improve targeting).

The UCLA International Consensus Panel on Focal Therapy recommends PGA primarily for carefully selected intermediate-risk patients with visible lesions on multiparametric MRI and concordant biopsy findings. Overly aggressive disease or extensive extracapsular involvement should preclude PGA due to higher recurrence risks.

Salvage Options and Long-Term Management

A unique advantage of PGAs is the feasibility of salvage therapies without compromising future radical options. Studies show that 80-90% of recurrences post-PGA remain organ-confined, allowing for repeat ablation, radiation, or even delayed prostatectomy. The PART Study Group reported that salvage radiation after PGA had similar efficacy to post-prostatectomy radiation, with 5-year progression-free survival exceeding 80%.

Long-term monitoring is crucial, with experts recommending PSA testing every 3-6 months and an annual MRI to detect recurrences early. The concept of "treat and surveil" rather than "treat and forget" is central to the PGA’s success.

Challenges and Limitations of PGA in Intermediate-Risk Disease

Despite its benefits, PGA faces several challenges:

• Lack of long-term (15+ year) survival data compared to radical treatments.

• Heterogeneity in ablation techniques, making outcomes variable across centers.

• Risk of under-treatment in occult multifocal disease, leading to delayed progression.

Additionally, insurance coverage remains inconsistent, limiting accessibility. More randomized trials, such as the ongoing FOCAL Trial (NCT04119076), are needed to establish PGA as a standard option.

Conclusion: Is PGA a Viable Option for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer?

Current evidence suggests that partial gland ablation provides acceptable oncological control for well-selected intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients, with the trade-off of slightly higher recurrence rates balanced by superior functional outcomes. While not suitable for all, PGA represents a middle ground between active surveillance and radical therapy, particularly for men prioritizing quality of life. Future refinements in imaging, ablation precision, and patient selection may further solidify its role in prostate cancer management.

Read more such content on @ Hidoc Dr | Medical Learning App for Doctors