The use of focal therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer in Canada: Where are we, how did we get here, and where are we going?

Introduction: Focal therapy is an emerging treatment for localized prostate cancer. The objectives of this review were to: 1) review how focal therapies are regulated and approved; 2) summarize the scope and quality of the literature regarding safety, efficacy, and side-effects; and 3) outline ongoing clinical trials of focal therapy in Canada.

Methods: Using the PRISMA framework for scoping reviews, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane from 2021-2024, complementing Hopstaken et al's search up functional and oncologic outcomes. Additionally, we examined the FDA database for regulatory details and ongoing trials in Canada via ClinicalTrial.gov.

Results: FDA approval for prostate tissue ablation was granted to high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) in 2015 via the de novo pathway; other therapies followed the 510(k) route, citing equivalence to predicate devices. Most studies are in early stages, primarily single-arm, prospective cohort designs. Oncologic outcomes like cancer detection and survival rates, alongside functional data, such as adverse events and erectile function, were assessed. Recurrence-free survival at 48 months ranged from 58-92%, pad-free rates were greater than 95%, and rates of new-onset erectile dysfunction were variable, ranging from no change to 50%. Rates of serious adverse events (SAEs) were low, ranging from 0-14%. Three Canadian clinical trials are actively enrolling participants, and five private clinics were found offering private HIFU, irreversible electroporation (IRE), or transurethral ultrasound ablation (TULSA).

Conclusions: Focal therapy technologies have gained regulatory approval for prostate tissue ablation, and, aside from provincial support for cryoablation in Alberta, are available to Canadians through private payment or clinical trials. Many studies demonstrate promising cancer control and impressive functional outcomes but are limited by their short followup and lack of comparator group. Clinical trial or registry participation should be prioritized to ensure an evidence-based integration into current prostate cancer treatment approaches.