Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 7, 2025
Focal Laser Ablation of Prostate Cancer: An Office Procedure
Published on: March 30, 2021
Long-term Outcomes of Focal Cryotherapy for Low- to Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: Results and Matched Pair
Giancarlo Marra1, Timo Soeterik2, Davide Oreggia3
1Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris and Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France; Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.
Background:
To date, only one trial compared focal therapy and active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). In addition, long-term outcomes of focal cryotherapy (FC) are lacking.
Objective:
Our aim was to evaluate long-term outcomes of FC and compare them with AS.
Design, Setting, And Participants:
We included two prospective series of 121 (FC) and 459 (AS) consecutive patients (2008-2018) for low- to intermediate-risk PCa.
Outcome Measurements And Statistical Analysis:
Study outcomes were radical therapy-free or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)-free, any treatment-free, metastasis-free, and overall survival. A matched pair analysis was performed using seven covariates.
Results And Limitations:
The median FC follow-up was 85 mo (interquartile range 58-104); 92 (76%) men had International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 1. Among matched variables, no significant differences were present except for cT stage and year of entry (both p < 0.01). Ten-year radical therapy-free or ADT-free, any treatment-free, metastasis-free, and overall survival were 51%, 40.2%, 93.9%, and 97%, respectively for FC. No differences were noted with AS (all p > 0.05), with the exception of time to radical therapy, time to radical therapy and ADT, and time to any treatment, all being shorter for AS (all p < 0.01). Freedom from radical treatment or ADT was higher for FC (AS 10 yr 39.3%; p = 0.04). Complications were relatively rare (26.5%) and mainly of low grade (Clavien >2, n = 3); three men developed incontinence (p = 0.0814), while both International Index of Erectile Function 5 and International Prostate Symptom Score scores increased (p = 0.0287 and p = 0.0165, respectively). Limitations include absence of randomization.
Conclusions:
At an early long-term follow-up, FC in the context of mainly low-risk PCa is safe and increases time to radical therapy but does not provide meaningful oncological advantages compared with AS.
Patient Summary:
We compared focal cryotherapy with active surveillance mainly for low-risk prostate cancer. Focal cryotherapy, despite having fewer complications, did not yield meaningful advantages over active surveillance at 10 yr. Active surveillance should be preferred to focal cryotherapy for these patients.
