[Cryosurgical ablation as primary treatment in prostate cancer patients].

OBJECTIVE: Cryosurgical ablation (CSA) is one treatment option that has been developed and it is now recognised as a true therapeutic alternative in the treatment of localised disease. The aim of this paper is to present the preliminary experience with CSA in prostate cancer from the centre in Norway.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 132 patients with prostate cancer have been treated with CSA since September 2003. In 90 patients, CSA was the primary therapy used and these patients included those with low (LR; n=27), intermediate (IR; n=37) and high risk (HR: n=26) disease. Low risk patients were defined as those with T1a-T2a, NO, MO, Gleason score < or = 6 and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <10 ng/ml. Intermediate risk were patients with T2b tumours or a PSA level of 10-20 ng/ml or Gleason score 7. High risk were defined as those with T2c tumours or Gleason score >7 or PSA >20 ng/ml. The remaining 42 patients either had locally advanced disease or had received salvage treatment after previous external beam radiation (EBRT), cryotherapy or hormone treatment. Patients were evaluated at 3 and 6 months and thereafter at 6 month intervals. A voiding history was taken and the following tests conducted: uroflowmetry, residual urine.

RESULTS: Results are presented for those patients receiving CSA as a primary therapy. Currently, the longest follow-up period is 42 months. The median observation period is 21 months and 39% of patients have been seen at the 24-month follow-up visit. No evidence of clinical progression has been observed in patients in the LR or HR group. Two patients in the IR group had clinical evidence of progression. The most common side effects seen during the first year post CSA were urinary tract obstruction and the need for removal of dead prostatic tissue or calcifications. Histological examination of the removed tissue did not shown evidence of prostate cancer. All patients in the LR and IR group that were sexually active before treatment were also sexually active on last follow-up, 37% using some kind of aid. 86% of patients in the LR and IR groups reported no bother as to sexual function.

CONCLUSIONS: CSA is now recognised by the EAU as a true therapeutic alternative for the treatment of prostate cancer. Many institutions offer CSA only to older patients due to the lack of long-term data. If longer follow-up data confirm the short-term effect seen in my series, and if comparable side effects are reported in other studies, CSA might also be offered as primary treatment to younger patients.