Focal Therapy in Oncology: A Comprehensive Review of Modalities, Mechanisms, Patient Selection, Efficacy, and Future Directions

Abstract

Focal therapy represents a transformative paradigm in contemporary oncology, offering highly targeted, minimally invasive interventions designed to precisely ablate malignant tissues while meticulously preserving adjacent healthy anatomical structures. This comprehensive review undertakes an exhaustive analysis of the predominant focal therapy modalities, encompassing High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU), cryoablation, irreversible electroporation (IRE), and photodynamic therapy (PDT). We delve profoundly into their intricate mechanisms of action, articulate rigorous patient selection criteria, scrutinize their demonstrated efficacy across a diverse spectrum of cancer types, and provide a detailed appraisal of the prevailing clinical evidence. Furthermore, this report critically examines prospective future developments and persistent challenges confronting the field, concurrently underscoring the imperative for the evolution of increasingly personalized treatment strategies and sustained, robust research endeavors aimed at optimizing long-term patient outcomes and enhancing quality of life.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

1. Introduction

The historical landscape of cancer management has predominantly been characterized by systemic therapeutic approaches, such as cytotoxic chemotherapy and external beam radiation therapy, alongside radical surgical interventions. While these conventional modalities have demonstrably improved survival rates for numerous malignancies, they are frequently associated with a substantial burden of systemic side effects, potential for significant functional morbidity, and may not be optimally suited or tolerated by all patient cohorts. Traditional radical treatments, such as radical prostatectomy or whole-gland radiation for localized prostate cancer, often result in considerable compromise of urinary and sexual function, significantly impacting a patient’s quality of life [1]. Similarly, aggressive surgical resections for liver or pancreatic tumors can be highly invasive and carry risks of severe complications.

In response to these limitations and driven by advancements in medical imaging and energy-based technologies, focal therapy has emerged as a revolutionary concept, embodying a fundamental shift towards a more precise and less aggressive form of cancer treatment. This innovative approach is rooted in the principle of ‘precision oncology,’ aiming for the exact destruction of only the known cancerous foci, thereby minimizing collateral damage to surrounding healthy parenchymal tissue and vital neurovascular structures. The appeal of focal therapy lies in its promise to offer a less invasive alternative, potentially reducing treatment-related morbidity, accelerating recovery times, and preserving organ function, particularly crucial for localized tumors that might otherwise necessitate whole-organ removal or irradiation [2]. This targeted approach is especially pertinent in the context of increasing incidence of early-stage, localized cancers, for which an overtreatment dilemma often exists when applying radical therapies.

The philosophical underpinning of focal therapy draws parallels with the concept of lumpectomy in breast cancer, where only the tumor and a margin of healthy tissue are removed, rather than the entire breast. In urology, for instance, this translates to treating a specific cancerous lesion within the prostate gland, rather than ablating or excising the entire gland. This selective destruction offers a compelling balance between oncological control and the preservation of organ-specific functions, representing a significant advancement in the pursuit of personalized cancer care [3].

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

2. Modalities of Focal Therapy

Focal therapy encompasses a diverse array of techniques, each leveraging distinct energy sources to meticulously target and destroy malignant cells. The primary modalities currently gaining prominence in clinical practice and ongoing research include High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU), cryoablation, irreversible electroporation (IRE), and photodynamic therapy (PDT). Each technique possesses unique biophysical principles, procedural characteristics, and suitability for specific clinical scenarios.

2.1 High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU)

HIFU harnesses the energy of highly focused ultrasound waves to induce precise thermal ablation of diseased tissues. The fundamental principle involves converting acoustic energy into thermal energy at a tightly defined focal point, typically achieving temperatures exceeding 60-80°C within seconds. This rapid temperature elevation leads to coagulative necrosis, a form of irreversible cellular death characterized by protein denaturation, cellular membrane rupture, and enzymatic inactivation, effectively destroying the targeted cancerous cells [4].

Mechanism of Action: HIFU operates primarily through two interconnected biophysical mechanisms: thermal and mechanical. The dominant effect is thermal, where high-frequency ultrasound waves are absorbed by tissue, causing rapid heating at the focal point. This heating is sufficient to induce instant coagulative necrosis. The concept of ‘thermal dose’ is critical, often quantified as cumulative equivalent minutes at 43°C (CEM43), to predict the extent of tissue destruction [5]. Secondary mechanical effects, such as cavitation (formation and collapse of microbubbles), can also contribute to cellular damage but are generally minimized in modern therapeutic HIFU protocols to ensure predictable thermal lesions. The precision of HIFU is derived from the ability of ultrasound waves to penetrate intervening tissue non-invasively, converging only at the focal point, thereby sparing the tissue pathway to and from the target.

Procedural Aspects: The HIFU procedure is notably non-invasive, requiring no incisions. For prostate cancer, a transrectal probe is typically employed, providing real-time ultrasound imaging guidance and delivering the focused energy. Alternatively, transabdominal approaches are utilized for organs like the liver or kidney. Patient positioning is crucial, often in lithotomy or lateral decubitus positions, to ensure optimal acoustic coupling and transducer access. Planning involves detailed pre-operative imaging (e.g., multi-parametric MRI for prostate) which is often fused with real-time ultrasound images to precisely delineate the target lesion. During the procedure, the treating physician remotely controls the transducer to ablate a series of small, precisely defined volumes within the tumor, creating a confluent lesion. Continuous monitoring of tissue temperature and tissue changes (e.g., changes in echogenicity) ensures treatment efficacy and safety [6]. Cooling systems within the transducer prevent damage to the rectal wall during prostate treatment.

Advantages and Disadvantages: A key advantage of HIFU is its non-invasive nature, leading to minimal blood loss and generally faster recovery times. It can be performed on an outpatient basis. For prostate cancer, it has been associated with a low incidence of erectile dysfunction and incontinence compared to radical treatments [7]. However, HIFU treatment requires specialized equipment and expertise. Its effectiveness can be limited by the presence of gas (e.g., bowel gas) or bone in the acoustic pathway, which can block or scatter ultrasound waves. Real-time temperature feedback can be challenging to obtain accurately across the entire treatment volume, relying heavily on image guidance and predictive models.

Applications: While most extensively studied and applied in prostate cancer, HIFU has also shown promise in treating benign conditions like uterine fibroids and has emerging applications in solid tumors such as hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the liver, renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the kidney, and palliation of bone metastases [8].

2.2 Cryoablation

Cryoablation, also known as cryotherapy or cryosurgery, involves the targeted destruction of tissue through extreme cold. This minimally invasive technique entails the percutaneous insertion of thin, hollow needles called cryoprobes directly into the tumor. Through these probes, highly pressurized gases (typically argon for freezing and helium for thawing) are circulated, causing rapid cooling of the probe tip and subsequent formation of an ‘ice ball’ that encompasses and destroys the cancerous tissue [9].

Mechanism of Action: The cellular destruction induced by cryoablation is multifaceted, involving both immediate and delayed effects. Immediate effects occur during the freezing cycles:
1. Intracellular Ice Crystal Formation: Rapid cooling causes water within cells to freeze into sharp ice crystals, which mechanically disrupt cellular organelles, membranes, and DNA.
2. Extracellular Ice Formation and Osmotic Shock: Water preferentially freezes outside cells, leading to an increased concentration of solutes in the extracellular space. This osmotic gradient draws water out of the cells, causing severe dehydration and shrinkage, followed by rupture upon rehydration during thawing.
3. Vascular Stasis and Ischemia: Freezing causes damage to the endothelial lining of blood vessels within and around the treated area, leading to thrombus formation, vascular occlusion, and subsequent tissue ischemia and necrosis.
Delayed effects include an inflammatory response and potential activation of an anti-tumor immune response, termed ‘cryo-immunology,’ though the clinical significance of this effect is still under investigation [10]. Multiple freeze-thaw cycles are typically employed to maximize cell death, as slow thawing can enhance crystal growth and cell lysis.

Procedural Aspects: Cryoablation is a minimally invasive procedure, often performed under local or regional anesthesia, though general anesthesia may be used depending on the tumor location and patient preference. Imaging guidance, most commonly ultrasound or CT, is critical for precise placement of the cryoprobes within the tumor. For prostate cancer, cryoprobes are inserted through the perineum, with care taken to avoid vital structures like the urethra (often protected by a warming catheter) and rectum. Real-time monitoring of the ice ball’s growth is essential to ensure adequate tumor coverage while sparing surrounding healthy tissue. Temperature sensors strategically placed near critical structures provide an additional layer of safety [11].

Advantages and Disadvantages: A significant advantage of cryoablation is the real-time visualization of the ice ball during the procedure, allowing for precise control of the ablation zone. It is also well-tolerated by patients, often with minimal pain post-procedure. Cryoablation is particularly effective for tumors that are close to vital structures, as the ice ball can be meticulously shaped. Its minimally invasive nature generally results in less blood loss and shorter hospital stays. However, it is an invasive procedure requiring needle insertion, which carries a small risk of infection or bleeding. There’s also a potential for cold-induced nerve damage if peripheral nerves are within the ablation zone [12].

Applications: Cryoablation has demonstrated promising results in treating localized prostate cancer, with studies indicating high rates of cancer control and preservation of erectile function. Its utility extends to other solid tumors, including small renal masses, hepatocellular carcinoma, lung cancer, and soft tissue tumors, offering a viable option for patients who are not surgical candidates or prefer a less invasive approach.

2.3 Irreversible Electroporation (IRE)

Irreversible Electroporation (IRE), commercially known as NanoKnife®, is a non-thermal ablative technique that employs short, high-voltage electrical pulses to create permanent nanopores in the cell membranes of targeted tissue. This distinct mechanism of action leads to cell death without generating significant heat, a crucial advantage when treating tumors located near critical structures sensitive to thermal damage [13].

Mechanism of Action: IRE works by applying carefully controlled electrical fields across tissue via multiple needle electrodes. When these electrical pulses are delivered, they induce a transmembrane potential across cell membranes. If the strength and duration of these pulses exceed a certain threshold, the natural lipid bilayer structure of the cell membrane undergoes structural rearrangement, leading to the formation of permanent, non-resealing pores. This process, termed ‘irreversible electroporation,’ compromises the cell’s ability to maintain its internal homeostasis, leading to a cascade of events that culminate in programmed cell death (apoptosis) within hours to days [14]. Crucially, IRE selectively targets cell membranes while preserving the extracellular matrix (ECM), including blood vessels, nerves, and ducts, which are largely composed of collagen. This preservation of structural integrity allows for faster healing and regeneration of the ablated area and minimizes functional damage to critical adjacent structures, unlike thermal ablation methods that cause widespread coagulative necrosis of all tissue components [15].

Procedural Aspects: IRE procedures typically require general anesthesia and complete muscle relaxation, as the high-voltage pulses can induce significant muscle contractions. Multiple needle electrodes are strategically inserted into and around the tumor under real-time imaging guidance (ultrasound, CT, or MRI). The number and configuration of electrodes depend on the tumor size and geometry. A pulse generator then delivers a series of precisely timed, high-voltage electrical pulses between the electrodes. For cardiac safety, particularly when treating thoracic or upper abdominal tumors, the pulse delivery must be synchronized with the patient’s electrocardiogram (ECG) to avoid potential cardiac arrhythmias [16]. Post-treatment, imaging is used to assess the immediate effects and long-term response.

Advantages and Disadvantages: The primary advantage of IRE is its non-thermal mechanism, which prevents the heat-related damage to vital structures like large blood vessels, bile ducts, and nerves. This makes it particularly suitable for tumors located in challenging anatomical areas, such as those adjacent to the urethra, neurovascular bundles in prostate cancer, or large vessels in liver and pancreatic cancers. The preservation of the ECM facilitates rapid tissue regeneration and potentially faster recovery of function. However, IRE is an invasive procedure requiring multiple needle insertions. It necessitates general anesthesia and muscle relaxants, which may not be suitable for all patients. The cost of the specialized equipment and the need for ECG synchronization are also considerations. While the non-thermal nature is beneficial, it means there are no immediate, visually apparent tissue changes (like blanching in thermal ablation) to confirm treatment effect, relying heavily on precise electrode placement and post-treatment imaging [17].

Applications: IRE has been investigated in various cancers, including prostate, liver, and pancreatic cancers, demonstrating promising safety and efficacy in early studies [18]. Its ability to treat tumors near critical structures has made it a valuable tool in locally advanced pancreatic cancer, where traditional surgery is often not feasible. It is also emerging as an option for select kidney and soft tissue tumors.

2.4 Photodynamic Therapy (PDT)

Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) is a sophisticated, minimally invasive treatment that combines a light-sensitive drug (photosensitizer), a specific wavelength of light, and oxygen to selectively destroy cancer cells. This tripartite interaction results in the production of highly reactive oxygen species (ROS) that induce localized cellular damage and death [19].

Mechanism of Action: The process begins with the administration of a photosensitizing agent, typically intravenously or topically. This drug selectively accumulates in rapidly proliferating cells, including cancer cells, more so than in healthy surrounding tissues. After a specific time interval, allowing for optimal photosensitizer accumulation and clearance from normal tissues, a light source emitting a specific wavelength is delivered to the tumor site. The wavelength of light is chosen to match the absorption spectrum of the photosensitizer. Upon absorption of light, the photosensitizer undergoes a photochemical reaction, shifting from its ground state to an excited singlet state, and then rapidly converts to a longer-lived excited triplet state. From this triplet state, the photosensitizer can interact with molecular oxygen present in the tissue through two main pathways:

1. Type I Reaction: The photosensitizer reacts directly with biological substrates (e.g., cell membranes, proteins) to produce radical species, such as superoxide radicals, hydroxyl radicals, and hydrogen peroxide.
2. Type II Reaction: The excited photosensitizer transfers its energy directly to molecular oxygen, generating highly cytotoxic singlet oxygen (¹O₂). Singlet oxygen is an extremely reactive form of oxygen that causes irreversible oxidative damage to essential cellular components, including lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids [20].

This oxidative stress leads to various forms of cell death, primarily apoptosis (programmed cell death), but also necrosis (uncontrolled cell death) at higher doses, and damage to the tumor vasculature, leading to ischemia and further tumor destruction. The dual selectivity – drug accumulation and precise light delivery – ensures that damage is largely confined to the targeted area.

Procedural Aspects: PDT is a minimally invasive procedure, often performed on an outpatient basis. After the photosensitizer is administered (e.g., intravenous infusion of porfimer sodium or oral administration of aminolevulinic acid), there is a waiting period (hours to days, depending on the drug) for optimal tumor uptake. Light delivery is then achieved using optical fibers inserted directly into the tumor (interstitial PDT) or via surface applicators, guided by imaging techniques such as ultrasound or MRI. The specific light wavelength is delivered by a laser or LED source. The treatment duration varies based on the light dose and photosensitizer characteristics. Patients are typically advised to avoid direct sunlight and bright indoor lights for a period after treatment due to systemic photosensitivity caused by residual photosensitizer in the skin [21].

Advantages and Disadvantages: PDT offers several compelling advantages, including its minimally invasive nature, high selectivity for cancerous tissue, and the ability to treat large or multiple lesions. It can be repeated if necessary, and it generally produces minimal long-term systemic toxicity. As a non-thermal therapy, it may also spare surrounding normal structures from heat damage. However, the depth of light penetration is limited, making it more suitable for superficial or easily accessible tumors, or those where interstitial fiber placement is feasible. The most significant side effect is temporary skin photosensitivity, which requires patients to adhere strictly to light avoidance measures post-treatment. The precise delivery of light to match the photosensitizer’s distribution can be challenging [22].

Applications: While early studies have shown promise in localized prostate cancer, PDT has a well-established role in treating various superficial cancers, including non-melanoma skin cancers (basal cell carcinoma, actinic keratosis), esophageal cancer (Barrett’s esophagus with high-grade dysplasia), early-stage lung cancer, and certain head and neck cancers. Ongoing research explores its efficacy and safety profile across other cancer types and its potential in combination therapies.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

3. Mechanisms of Action: A Deeper Dive

Understanding the nuanced cellular and molecular pathways triggered by each focal therapy modality is crucial for optimizing treatment parameters and predicting outcomes. While the superficial descriptions highlight their primary destructive mechanisms, a deeper dive reveals intricate biological responses.

3.1 HIFU: Thermal Dose and Beyond

HIFU’s primary mechanism, as noted, is thermal coagulative necrosis. The rapid and localized temperature rise denatures proteins, disrupts cell membranes, and collapses the microvasculature, leading to ischemic necrosis of the targeted volume [5]. The duration and intensity of the ultrasound exposure are critical parameters determining the ‘thermal dose,’ which dictates the extent of irreversible damage. Typically, temperatures above 56°C for one second are sufficient to cause instantaneous cell death. Temperatures below this, but above physiological norms (e.g., 43°C), can induce ‘hyperthermia,’ which might not directly kill cells but can sensitize them to radiation or chemotherapy, potentially offering a basis for combination therapies. Beyond direct cell kill, HIFU can also trigger an inflammatory response that may have immune-modulating effects, though this area requires further research. Some evidence suggests that HIFU can induce a systemic anti-tumor immune response by releasing tumor antigens and danger-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) from the destroyed cells [23].

3.2 Cryoablation: Biologic Cascade of Cold Injury

The cellular devastation inflicted by cryoablation is not merely due to physical ice crystal formation. The dynamic interplay of freezing and thawing cycles initiates a complex biological cascade:

• Direct Cellular Damage: As temperatures drop below freezing, water within and around cells turns to ice. Intracellular ice crystals directly puncture and disrupt cell organelles. Extracellular ice formation draws water out of cells due to osmotic gradients, causing severe cellular dehydration and shrinkage. Upon thawing, the rapid re-entry of water can lead to cell swelling and rupture (osmotic shock).
• Vascular Disruption: The microvasculature within the treated zone is highly susceptible to cold injury. Endothelial cell damage, platelet aggregation, and fibrin clot formation lead to microvascular stasis and subsequent thrombosis. This vascular occlusion deprives the tissue of oxygen and nutrients, leading to ischemic necrosis, a significant contributor to the overall cytotoxic effect [10].
• Apoptosis: While necrosis is the predominant form of cell death at very low temperatures, moderate cold stress or sub-lethal injury can activate apoptotic pathways, leading to programmed cell death. This can contribute to delayed cell death after the initial freeze-thaw cycles.
• Immunomodulation: The destruction of tumor cells by cryoablation releases tumor-associated antigens and DAMPs, which can be processed by antigen-presenting cells (APCs). This may potentially stimulate a systemic anti-tumor immune response, leading to what is termed the ‘cryo-immunological effect.’ While promising, translating this effect into clinical benefit (e.g., treating distant metastases) remains a subject of ongoing investigation [24].

3.3 IRE: Non-Thermal, Structure-Sparing Cell Death

The distinctive feature of IRE is its non-thermal mechanism of action. Unlike thermal ablation, IRE does not rely on heat or cold to destroy tissue. Instead, it selectively targets the lipid bilayer of cell membranes. When high-voltage, short-duration electrical pulses are applied, they transiently increase the transmembrane potential across cell membranes. If this potential exceeds a critical threshold, it induces a structural reorganization of the lipid bilayer, leading to the formation of hydrophilic pores. If these pores are small and transient, they can reseal (reversible electroporation, used in gene therapy). However, with specific pulse parameters, the pores become large, numerous, and permanent, leading to irreversible electroporation [14].

This permanent poration compromises the cell’s ability to maintain its electrochemical gradients and ion homeostasis (e.g., Na+/K+ pump failure). The resulting influx of ions and water leads to cell swelling and eventual apoptotic cell death. A key aspect of IRE is its selectivity: while it effectively destroys cellular components, it preserves the non-cellular extracellular matrix (ECM), including collagen, elastin, and the intricate vascular and nerve scaffolding. This preservation is vital for maintaining the structural integrity of vital organs and allowing for rapid tissue regeneration and preservation of functional structures (e.g., nerves, bile ducts, major blood vessels) within the ablated zone, significantly reducing post-treatment complications observed with thermal methods [15].

3.4 PDT: Photochemical Production of Reactive Oxygen Species

PDT’s efficacy hinges on a precise photochemical reaction. The administered photosensitizer (PS) absorbs light of a specific wavelength, transitioning to an excited state. From this excited state, the PS can transfer energy to molecular oxygen, generating highly reactive oxygen species (ROS), primarily singlet oxygen (¹O₂). These ROS are extremely short-lived and highly cytotoxic, reacting with nearby biological molecules such as lipids, proteins, and DNA, causing irreversible oxidative damage [20].

The damage induced by ROS leads to multiple cellular responses:

• Direct Cell Death: Oxidative damage to cellular organelles (e.g., mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum) and signaling pathways triggers various forms of cell death, predominantly apoptosis, but also necrosis, and autophagy, depending on the PS concentration, light dose, and oxygen availability.
• Vascular Shutdown: ROS also damage the endothelial cells lining the tumor blood vessels, leading to microvascular permeability, platelet aggregation, thrombus formation, and subsequent vascular occlusion. This effectively starves the tumor of oxygen and nutrients, contributing significantly to tumor destruction [19].
• Immune Response: PDT-induced tumor destruction can also elicit an acute inflammatory response and potentially activate the innate and adaptive immune systems, leading to the release of DAMPs and tumor antigens, similar to HIFU and cryoablation. This ‘PDT-induced immunogenicity’ is an active area of research for potential combination with immunotherapies [25].

The localized production of ROS, combined with the selective accumulation of the photosensitizer and precise light delivery, ensures highly specific tumor destruction with minimal damage to healthy surrounding tissues.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

4. Patient Selection Criteria: Guiding Principles for Optimal Outcomes

Appropriate patient selection is paramount for maximizing the efficacy and safety of focal therapy, ensuring that patients receive the most beneficial and least harmful treatment. The ideal candidate for focal therapy generally presents with localized disease characteristics that make them amenable to targeted ablation while meeting specific health and functional criteria.

4.1 Localized Disease: Precision Targeting

The cornerstone of focal therapy lies in its ability to target specific lesions. Therefore, patients must have disease confined to a treatable area. This typically implies:

• Tumor Size and Number: The tumor(s) should be of a manageable size for complete ablation with adequate margins, typically single or oligofocal lesions. For prostate cancer, this often means a unifocal or dominant index lesion, with smaller, clinically insignificant foci potentially being left untreated, a concept termed ‘field fire’ or ‘partial gland ablation’ [26]. Multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) plays a pivotal role in identifying and characterizing these lesions, providing crucial information about tumor location, size, and extracapsular extension (ECE).
• Anatomical Location: The tumor must be accessible to the chosen focal therapy modality without undue risk to adjacent critical structures. For instance, lesions close to the prostatic urethra, external sphincter, or neurovascular bundles require careful consideration and precise targeting with modalities like IRE or low-energy HIFU. Lesions deeply embedded or with significant extra-organ extension may be less suitable.
• Absence of Metastasis: Focal therapy is not indicated for metastatic disease. Pre-treatment staging, including imaging (CT, bone scan, PSMA PET-CT for prostate cancer) and lymph node assessment, is crucial to rule out regional or distant spread.

4.2 Low to Intermediate Risk Disease: Balancing Efficacy and Morbidity

Focal therapy is primarily suited for patients with low to intermediate-risk cancers, where the balance between oncological control and functional preservation is most favorable. For prostate cancer, this risk stratification is typically defined by parameters such as:

• Gleason Score: Generally, Gleason Score 3+4=7 is considered intermediate risk, and 3+3=6 is low risk. Focal therapy is increasingly considered for these groups. Higher Gleason scores (e.g., 4+3=7 or 8-10) are generally considered high-risk and are less often candidates for focal therapy due to a higher likelihood of multifocality, extracapsular extension, and aggressive biological behavior, requiring more definitive whole-gland or systemic treatments [27].
• Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) Levels: Lower PSA levels (e.g., <10 ng/mL for low risk, 10-20 ng/mL for intermediate risk) are typically preferred, as very high PSA levels can indicate larger tumor volume or more aggressive disease.
• Clinical T-Stage: Tumors confined to the organ (T1-T2 stages) are ideal. Evidence of extracapsular extension (T3) or seminal vesicle invasion (T3b) generally contraindicates focal therapy.
• Tumor Volume: Smaller tumor volumes are more amenable to complete ablation and are associated with better outcomes.

Accurate risk stratification often involves a combination of mpMRI, targeted biopsies (MRI-fusion biopsy), and sometimes genomic testing to refine risk assessment and identify clinically significant disease that warrants intervention [28].

4.3 Good Performance Status and Life Expectancy: Patient Suitability

Patients considered for focal therapy should generally be in good overall health, capable of tolerating the procedure and anesthesia, and have a reasonable life expectancy (typically >10 years for prostate cancer) to justify the investment in a treatment aimed at long-term cancer control and quality of life preservation.

• Comorbidities: Significant comorbidities that increase surgical or anesthetic risk may make radical treatments less appealing, thereby making minimally invasive focal therapy a more attractive option, provided the patient can still tolerate the procedure itself.
• Age: While age itself is not an absolute contraindication, it is considered in conjunction with overall health and life expectancy. Younger patients with localized disease and a long life expectancy are often ideal candidates due to the potential for long-term functional preservation.

4.4 Informed Consent and Shared Decision-Making: Patient Engagement

Comprehensive patient counseling and shared decision-making are critical. Patients must fully understand:

• The nature of focal therapy: That it is a partial treatment, distinct from radical therapies, and that it aims to control the disease while preserving function.
• Potential risks and benefits: Including the risk of recurrence in treated or untreated areas, the need for stringent post-treatment surveillance (PSA, mpMRI, repeat biopsies), and the potential need for salvage treatments.
• Uncertainties: Acknowledging that long-term comparative data (especially randomized controlled trials) versus radical treatments are still accumulating.

Patients should be willing to adhere to rigorous follow-up protocols, which are more intensive than those following radical treatments, to monitor for disease recurrence or progression. The decision to proceed with focal therapy should be made in a multidisciplinary team setting, involving urologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, and pathologists, to ensure a comprehensive assessment and personalized treatment plan [29].

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

5. Efficacy Across Various Cancer Types

Focal therapy has been selectively applied to a growing number of cancer types, demonstrating varying degrees of success and establishing its niche in the therapeutic landscape. While prostate cancer remains the most extensively studied application, its utility is expanding.

5.1 Prostate Cancer: The Leading Application

Prostate cancer has been the primary beneficiary of focal therapy research and clinical adoption, driven by the desire to mitigate the significant functional side effects of radical prostatectomy and whole-gland radiation. Studies on various modalities in prostate cancer have reported promising oncological and functional outcomes:

• Oncological Control: Long-term follow-up studies for HIFU, cryoablation, and IRE in localized prostate cancer indicate encouraging cancer control rates. For HIFU, studies report 5-year cancer control rates (defined as no biopsy-proven recurrence in the treated area or need for salvage therapy) ranging from 76% to 88% for low to intermediate-risk disease, with some series extending to 10-year follow-up demonstrating durable control [30]. Cryoablation has shown similar oncological outcomes, with 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rates (BCRFS) of approximately 70-80% for appropriate candidates [31]. IRE for prostate cancer, while newer, has demonstrated complete necrosis in treated areas in early studies, with short-to-medium term oncological control rates comparable to other focal modalities, particularly for anterior or apical lesions [32]. It’s crucial to note that ‘cancer control’ in focal therapy often refers to local control of the treated lesion, with ongoing surveillance for new foci or progression.

• Functional Outcomes: The preservation of urinary and sexual function is a significant advantage of focal therapy. Compared to radical prostatectomy or whole-gland radiation, focal therapy is associated with a markedly lower incidence of erectile dysfunction (ED) and urinary incontinence (UI). Post-HIFU, studies report rates of severe ED (defined as insufficient for intercourse) as low as 10-20% and clinically significant UI (requiring pads) typically less than 5% [7]. Similar rates are observed with cryoablation and IRE, with many patients maintaining their baseline urinary and sexual function due to targeted ablation and neurovascular bundle sparing [33]. These functional benefits significantly enhance the patient’s quality of life post-treatment.

• Challenges in Prostate: Despite promising results, challenges remain, including the potential for missing multifocal disease outside the treated area, the difficulty in accurately identifying all clinically significant foci, and the need for robust, long-term comparative effectiveness data against radical treatments.

5.2 Liver Cancer: Targeting Primary and Secondary Tumors

Focal therapy modalities, particularly HIFU, cryoablation, and IRE, have become increasingly important in the management of primary liver cancers (hepatocellular carcinoma, HCC) and metastatic liver tumors (e.g., colorectal metastases), especially for patients who are not candidates for surgery or transplantation [34].

• HIFU: Used for HCC, particularly for patients with compromised liver function or those awaiting transplant. Local tumor control rates (complete response) of 70-90% have been reported for small, localized HCC lesions [8].
• Cryoablation: Provides excellent local control for liver tumors, with the advantage of real-time ice ball visualization under ultrasound guidance. It’s often preferred for lesions near major vessels, where the cold effect can induce vascular thrombosis, and for large tumors or those with complex shapes. Local recurrence rates of 10-20% at 3 years have been reported for HCC and colorectal metastases [35].
• IRE: Due to its non-thermal, structure-sparing nature, IRE is particularly valuable for liver tumors located in challenging perivascular or periductal locations (e.g., near hepatic veins, portal pedicle, bile ducts) where thermal ablation carries a high risk of damaging these critical structures, leading to complications like biliary strictures or vascular thrombosis. Studies have shown IRE to achieve high rates of complete necrosis (over 90%) in treated areas with favorable safety profiles, preserving vascular and biliary integrity [36].

5.3 Pancreatic Cancer: Addressing Locally Advanced Disease

Pancreatic cancer is notoriously aggressive and often presents as locally advanced, precluding surgical resection. IRE has emerged as a promising local treatment option for these challenging tumors.

• IRE: Given the pancreas’s proximity to major blood vessels (superior mesenteric artery/vein, portal vein, celiac axis) and critical structures, thermal ablation methods are generally contraindicated due to the high risk of catastrophic complications (e.g., vascular rupture, bowel perforation). IRE’s ability to spare the ECM and thus maintain the integrity of these vessels makes it a unique tool for achieving local tumor control. Early studies suggest that IRE can be safely applied to locally advanced pancreatic tumors, offering improved local control and modest survival benefits when combined with chemotherapy, compared to chemotherapy alone in some series [37]. While not curative for metastatic disease, it can provide significant local control, pain palliation, and potentially downstage some tumors for surgical resection.

5.4 Kidney Cancer: Managing Small Renal Masses

Focal therapy, particularly cryoablation and HIFU, is increasingly used for the management of small renal masses (SRMs), especially in elderly patients or those with multiple comorbidities who are not surgical candidates, or for those with solitary kidneys or hereditary kidney cancer syndromes.

• Cryoablation: Has become a standard ablative technique for SRMs, offering excellent local control rates (approaching 90-95% for T1a lesions) with minimal impact on renal function, and fewer complications compared to partial nephrectomy [38].
• HIFU: Emerging as a non-invasive option for SRMs, showing promising early results in local tumor control with potential for kidney function preservation [39].

5.5 Other Emerging Applications

Focal therapy concepts are also being explored in other malignancies:

• Breast Cancer: Focal ablation is being investigated for small, early-stage, low-risk breast cancers, particularly for patients who desire breast conservation without surgery or radiation, although this is largely experimental [40].
• Thyroid Cancer: For low-risk microcarcinomas, particularly in patients who opt against active surveillance or surgery, HIFU and cryoablation are being explored for local tumor destruction [41].
• Bone Tumors: HIFU can be used for palliative pain relief in metastatic bone tumors, and cryoablation for local control of painful benign or metastatic bone lesions.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

6. Clinical Evidence and Outcomes: A Critical Appraisal

The burgeoning field of focal therapy is supported by a growing body of clinical evidence, albeit with ongoing needs for more robust, long-term, and comparative data. The assessment of outcomes typically focuses on oncological control, functional preservation, and adverse events.

6.1 Oncological Control and Recurrence Rates

• Defining Success: In focal therapy, oncological success is primarily defined by the absence of clinically significant disease recurrence within the treated area, and ideally, globally. For prostate cancer, this is often monitored by PSA kinetics (e.g., PSA nadir, PSA bounce, or PSA progression defined by a specific rise from nadir), prostate mpMRI, and targeted or systematic re-biopsies [26].
• Reported Control Rates: As noted in Section 5, 5-year cancer control rates for low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer range from 70-88% across various modalities. For liver and kidney cancers, local tumor control rates often exceed 80-90% for appropriately selected small lesions [34, 38].
• Recurrence Patterns: Recurrence after focal therapy can manifest in several ways:
  1. In-field recurrence: Residual or recurrent disease within the originally treated ablation zone, often due to incomplete ablation or skip lesions.
  2. Out-of-field recurrence: New, clinically significant disease developing in an untreated part of the gland/organ. This highlights the importance of thorough pre-treatment mapping and the inherent multifocality of some cancers.
  3. Distant recurrence: Metastasis, which is rare for appropriately selected focal therapy candidates but remains a possibility if the initial staging was inaccurate or if the biology of the tumor was more aggressive than assessed.
• Management of Recurrence: If recurrence is detected, patients can often undergo salvage focal therapy (re-treatment of the same area or a new area), or they may require salvage radical therapies (e.g., salvage prostatectomy or salvage radiation), although these carry a higher risk of complications than primary radical treatments [42]. This possibility of salvage options provides a safety net for focal therapy, allowing a tiered approach to cancer management.

6.2 Functional Outcomes and Quality of Life

The significant advantage of focal therapy is its ability to preserve organ function and quality of life. Detailed patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly important in evaluating these aspects.

• Urinary Function: For prostate cancer, rates of de novo severe urinary incontinence are consistently low (typically <5%) across HIFU, cryoablation, and IRE studies, in stark contrast to radical prostatectomy (which can be 10-20% or higher for severe incontinence) [7, 33]. Patients generally report preservation of baseline voiding function (assessed by IPSS – International Prostate Symptom Score) or only minor transient irritative symptoms.
• Sexual Function: Preservation of erectile function is a key driver for patient preference. Focal therapy, especially when targeting lesions away from the neurovascular bundles, leads to significantly better erectile function preservation compared to whole-gland treatments. Reported rates of maintained erections sufficient for intercourse vary but are often in the 70-90% range for appropriately selected patients, particularly with IRE or targeted HIFU [43]. Objective measures like SHIM (Sexual Health Inventory for Men) scores are used to quantify changes in sexual function.
• Rectal Complications: For prostate cancer, the risk of rectourethral fistula (a rare but severe complication) is very low, typically <1% for all modalities, with careful procedural technique and rectal cooling (for HIFU/cryoablation) [44].
• Other Organ-Specific Functions: For kidney cancer, focal therapy helps preserve renal function, crucial for patients with pre-existing chronic kidney disease or a solitary kidney. In liver cancer, it minimizes the loss of functional liver parenchyma, reducing the risk of post-ablation liver failure.

6.3 Limitations of Current Clinical Evidence

Despite the encouraging results, certain limitations exist in the current body of evidence:

• Lack of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs): A significant gap is the paucity of large-scale, long-term RCTs directly comparing focal therapy to established radical treatments (e.g., radical prostatectomy or whole-gland radiation) for oncological outcomes. Most data come from single-arm prospective studies, retrospective series, or comparative observational studies [29]. This makes it challenging to draw definitive conclusions about oncological equivalence.
• Heterogeneity of Protocols: Variations exist in patient selection criteria, ablation parameters (energy settings, number of probes, treatment margins), follow-up protocols, and definitions of recurrence or success across different centers and studies, making meta-analyses and direct comparisons difficult.
• Short-to-Medium Term Follow-up: While some studies report 5- and 10-year data, long-term (e.g., >10-15 years) oncological outcomes, crucial for cancers like prostate cancer with long natural histories, are still accumulating.
• Learning Curve: The successful implementation of focal therapy is highly operator-dependent, with significant learning curves for accurate targeting, energy delivery, and complication management. Initial results from less experienced centers may vary.

To address these limitations, ongoing efforts are focused on establishing multi-center registries, standardized reporting guidelines, and well-designed comparative studies to provide more definitive evidence of focal therapy’s long-term safety and efficacy.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

7. Future Developments and Challenges

The field of focal therapy is in a dynamic state of evolution, characterized by continuous technological innovation and deepening biological understanding. However, several significant challenges must be addressed to facilitate its broader integration into standard oncological practice.

7.1 Technological Advancements: Towards Hyper-Precision

The trajectory of focal therapy is moving towards increasingly sophisticated and precise delivery systems:

• Advanced Imaging and Fusion Platforms: Future developments will focus on enhancing real-time imaging capabilities. Integration of multi-parametric MRI, functional imaging (e.g., PSMA PET-CT), and even intraoperative optical imaging (e.g., fluorescence guidance) with real-time ultrasound or robotic platforms will allow for superior tumor visualization, precise planning, and adaptive targeting during the procedure [28]. AI-driven image analysis and automated segmentation of tumors and organs at risk will further refine targeting accuracy.
• Robotic Assistance: Robotic platforms are poised to enhance the precision, stability, and repeatability of focal therapy procedures. Robotic control of energy delivery devices (e.g., HIFU transducers, IRE electrodes) could minimize human tremor, optimize probe placement, and facilitate complex, multi-quadrant ablations with sub-millimeter accuracy [45].
• Non-Invasive Monitoring and Feedback: Development of advanced thermal mapping techniques for HIFU (e.g., MRI thermometry) and real-time visualization of irreversible changes for IRE and cryoablation will be critical for ensuring complete and safe ablation, potentially reducing the need for post-treatment biopsies.
• Novel Energy Sources: Emerging ablative technologies, such as histotripsy (a non-thermal, mechanical ultrasound ablation technique that fractionates tissue through controlled cavitation) or high-frequency irreversible electroporation (H-FIRE), are under investigation, promising even greater precision and different tissue interactions [46].

7.2 Combination Therapies: Synergistic Approaches

The future of focal therapy is likely to involve its integration with systemic treatments to enhance efficacy and address microscopic disease or potential recurrence:

• Focal Ablation + Immunotherapy: The destruction of tumor cells by focal therapies can release tumor antigens and DAMPs, potentially converting a ‘cold’ tumor environment into an ‘inflamed’ one, thereby priming or boosting a systemic anti-tumor immune response. Combining focal ablation (e.g., cryoablation or HIFU) with immune checkpoint inhibitors (e.g., anti-PD-1/PD-L1) or other immunomodulatory agents is an active area of preclinical and clinical research, aiming to treat not just the primary lesion but also distant micrometastases (the ‘abscopal effect’) [24, 25].
• Focal Ablation + Chemotherapy/Radiosensitizers: Targeted delivery of chemotherapy agents (e.g., using focused ultrasound to enhance drug penetration) or local application of radiosensitizers could enhance the destructive effects of focal therapy or conventional radiation, particularly for more aggressive tumor subsets.
• Focal Ablation + Targeted Agents: Combining focal therapy with molecularly targeted agents that address specific oncogenic pathways could offer a personalized approach based on the tumor’s genetic profile.

7.3 Standardization of Protocols and Guidelines

For widespread adoption and consistent outcomes, significant standardization is required:

• Consensus Guidelines: Development of international, multidisciplinary consensus guidelines for patient selection, pre-treatment imaging, biopsy protocols, treatment parameters, follow-up schedules, and criteria for defining success and failure. This will ensure consistency and comparability of results across different institutions.
• Registries and Data Collection: Establishment of large, multicenter prospective registries will be crucial for collecting long-term oncological and functional outcomes data on a broad scale, allowing for robust statistical analysis and real-world evidence generation [29].
• Quality Control and Training: Implementing standardized training and accreditation programs for practitioners will ensure a high level of expertise and reduce the impact of the learning curve on patient outcomes.

7.4 Long-Term Data and Comparative Effectiveness Research

The most pressing need is for robust, long-term (e.g., >10-15 years) follow-up data from well-designed clinical trials, particularly randomized controlled trials comparing focal therapy to standard radical treatments. This will definitively establish the oncological equivalence or superiority of focal therapy in specific patient populations, balancing functional benefits against cancer control. Comparative effectiveness research will also be essential to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of focal therapy in various healthcare systems, considering not only direct treatment costs but also the economic burden of complications and long-term surveillance [47].

7.5 Challenges Ahead

Despite the exciting prospects, several challenges persist:

• Accurate Disease Localization: The primary challenge remains the accurate identification of all clinically significant cancerous foci, especially in inherently multifocal diseases like prostate cancer. Current imaging and biopsy techniques, while advanced, are not perfect in mapping the entire tumor burden, leading to a risk of ‘missing’ disease.
• Risk of Incomplete Ablation: Ensuring complete destruction of the targeted lesion with adequate margins, while sparing critical structures, is technically demanding and requires sophisticated tools and expertise.
• Management of Recurrence: While salvage options exist, recurrence after focal therapy necessitates additional treatment, which can be more complex and risky than primary treatment.
• Patient and Physician Education: There is a need for greater awareness and understanding of focal therapy among both patients and the broader medical community to ensure appropriate referral and informed decision-making.
• Regulatory Pathways: Navigating regulatory approvals for new devices and indications, often requiring significant clinical data and investment.

Addressing these challenges will pave the way for focal therapy to become a more widely accepted and integral component of personalized cancer management, truly revolutionizing how localized malignancies are treated.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

8. Conclusion

Focal therapy represents a compelling and rapidly evolving approach in modern oncology, offering a powerful paradigm shift towards targeted, minimally invasive treatments. Its fundamental aim is to precisely eradicate cancerous tissues while meticulously preserving healthy structures and, crucially, maintaining quality of life and organ function. The diverse array of modalities—High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound, cryoablation, irreversible electroporation, and photodynamic therapy—each operates through distinct biophysical mechanisms, offering tailored solutions for various tumor types and anatomical locations.

While current evidence strongly supports its efficacy in specific cancers, most notably localized prostate cancer, where it demonstrably achieves high rates of oncological control with significantly reduced functional morbidity compared to radical alternatives, its application is steadily expanding to liver, kidney, and pancreatic malignancies. The core advantages of focal therapy lie in its ability to reduce treatment-related side effects, minimize recovery times, and preserve crucial organ functions, thereby profoundly enhancing patient-reported outcomes.

However, the journey towards widespread adoption and optimization of focal therapy is marked by critical ongoing needs. Robust, long-term clinical data, ideally derived from large-scale randomized controlled trials, are essential to definitively establish oncological equivalence or superiority against established radical treatments. Standardization of treatment protocols, patient selection criteria, and follow-up guidelines is paramount to ensure consistent outcomes and facilitate comparative research across institutions. Furthermore, continuous technological advancements, including enhanced imaging guidance, robotic assistance, and the exploration of novel energy sources, will undoubtedly refine treatment precision and expand applicability.

Future directions are likely to involve the integration of focal therapy with systemic treatments, such as immunotherapy, to leverage potential synergistic anti-tumor effects and address microscopic disease. The overarching goal is the development of truly personalized treatment strategies, informed by comprehensive clinical, imaging, and molecular data, to select the optimal therapy for each individual patient. The successful integration of focal therapy into standard oncological practice holds the promise of revolutionizing cancer care, offering patients an increasingly effective yet less debilitating pathway to disease control and improved quality of life.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

References

1. Litwin, M. S., & Tan, H. J. (2017). The Diagnosis and Treatment of Prostate Cancer: A Review. JAMA, 317(24), 2532–2542.
2. Ahmed, H. U., et al. (2012). Focal therapy for localised prostate cancer. Current Opinion in Urology, 22(4), 312–318.
3. Donaldson, J., & Fascelli, M. (2020). Focal therapy for prostate cancer: an evolving paradigm in precision oncology. Asian Journal of Urology, 7(2), 101–109.
4. Kennedy, J. E. (2005). High-intensity focused ultrasound in the treatment of solid tumours. Nature Reviews Cancer, 5(4), 321–327.
5. Lizzi, F. L., et al. (2012). Thermal dose during focused ultrasound surgery. International Journal of Hyperthermia, 28(4), 369–381.
6. Uchicago Medicine. (n.d.). Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer: HIFU. Retrieved from https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/en/cancer/types-treatments/prostate-cancer/treatment/focal-therapy
7. Chaussy, C., & Thüroff, S. (2012). The status of high-intensity focused ultrasound in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Current Opinion in Urology, 22(4), 280–285.
8. Zhang, L., et al. (2015). High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for liver cancer. Frontiers in Bioscience (Landmark Ed), 20(1), 163–170.
9. Baust, J. M., et al. (2019). The Cell Biology of Cryoablation. The Journal of Surgical Research, 243, 303–311.
10. Han, B., & Li, L. (2021). Cryoablation for cancer: A review of the mechanisms and recent advances. Cancer Biology & Medicine, 18(1), 58–69.
11. Fox Chase Cancer Center. (n.d.). Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer. Retrieved from https://www.foxchase.org/clinical-care/conditions/prostate-cancer/treatment/surgery/focal-therapy
12. Onik, G. M., & Rubinsky, B. (2010). Irreversible Electroporation: Principles and Clinical Applications. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
13. Davalos, R. V., et al. (2005). Electrical ablation of tumors employing irreversible electroporation. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 52(9), 1673–1682.
14. Miller, L., et al. (2010). Clinical Applications of Irreversible Electroporation: State of the Art. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 21(11), 1610–1619.
15. Rubinsky, B. (2007). Irreversible Electroporation: The New Paradigm of Electroporation. Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment, 6(4), 255–260.
16. Onik, G., & Rubinsky, B. (2010). Irreversible Electroporation. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
17. Guenther, T., et al. (2019). Prostate Cancer Treatment with Irreversible Electroporation (IRE): Safety, Efficacy and Clinical Experience in 471 Treatments. PLOS ONE, 14(9), e0222013.
18. Valerio, M., et al. (2014). Focal irreversible electroporation for prostate cancer: functional outcomes and short-term oncological control. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, 17(4), 346–351.
19. Dolmans, D. E., et al. (2003). Photodynamic Therapy: A New Concept in the Treatment of Cancer. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 53(5), 297–314.
20. Agostinis, P., et al. (2021). The Cancer-Immunity Cycle of Photodynamic Therapy: Emerging Evidence and Future Challenges. Cancer Cell, 39(12), 1600–1612.
21. Cancer Network. (n.d.). Primary Focal Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Review of the Literature. Retrieved from https://www.cancernetwork.com/view/primary-focal-therapy-for-localized-prostate-cancer-a-review-of-the-literature
22. Ju, H. J., et al. (2015). Photodynamic therapy for prostate cancer. Translational Cancer Research, 4(4), 374–382.
23. Zhou, Y., et al. (2020). Immune Response to High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound in Cancer Treatment: A Review. Frontiers in Immunology, 11, 2351.
24. Li, Y. H., et al. (2016). Cryo-Immunology: Inducing an Antitumor Immune Response by Cryoablation. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 17(8), 1195.
25. Castano, A. P., et al. (2006). Photodynamic therapy and the immune response. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, 38(9), 920–928.
26. Onik, G., & Rubinsky, B. (2010). Irreversible Electroporation. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
27. Muller, B. G., et al. (2016). Focal therapy for prostate cancer. Translational Andrology and Urology, 5(2), 229–243.
28. Padhani, A. R., et al. (2019). PI-RADS v2.1: a review of changes compared to PI-RADS v2. European Urology Focus, 5(1), 11-19.
29. Valerio, M., et al. (2017). A Systematic Review of Focal Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. European Urology, 71(1), 101-120.
30. Chinn Urology. (n.d.). Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Benefits, Options & Outcomes. Retrieved from https://chinnurology.com/focal-therapy-for-prostate-cancer/
31. Long, J. A., et al. (2019). Focal Cryoablation for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Review of Oncological and Functional Outcomes. Journal of Endourology, 33(4), 273–280.
32. Blazevski, A., et al. (2020). Focal ablation of apical prostate cancer lesions with irreversible electroporation (IRE). World Journal of Urology, 38(2), 359-366.
33. Emberton, M., et al. (2016). Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer: The Need for Patient-Centric Outcomes. European Urology Focus, 2(1), 1-3.
34. Crocetti, L., et al. (2019). Image-Guided Ablation of Liver Tumors. Seminars in Liver Disease, 39(1), 101–114.
35. Hwang, S., et al. (2020). Long-term outcomes of percutaneous cryoablation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 31(1), 125–132.
36. Scheffer, H. J., et al. (2014). Irreversible electroporation for colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 25(8), 1205–1214.
37. Martin, R. C., et al. (2015). Irreversible electroporation in locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a prospective single-arm, multicenter study. Surgery, 158(5), 1195–1204.
38. Wah, T. M., et al. (2018). Percutaneous cryoablation of small renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review. European Journal of Radiology, 108, 114–121.
39. Kim, C., et al. (2020). Focused Ultrasound (FUS) Ablation in Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Review. Cancers, 12(9), 2410.
40. Sabel, M. S., et al. (2013). Cryoablation of Breast Cancer: The American Society of Breast Surgeons Consensus Statement. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 20(3), 693–698.
41. Ma, J., et al. (2021). High-intensity focused ultrasound ablation for benign thyroid nodules: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, 40(6), 1141–1150.
42. Onik, G., & Rubinsky, B. (2010). Irreversible Electroporation. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
43. Al-Qaoud, T., et al. (2018). Functional Outcomes After Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. European Urology Focus, 4(6), 949-958.
44. Ghanem, S., & Ahmed, H. U. (2016). Complications of Focal Therapy for Localised Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. Journal of Endourology, 30(10), 1079-1088.
45. Al-Shukri, M., et al. (2021). Robotic-Assisted Ablation for Prostate Cancer: A Review of Current and Future Technologies. Journal of Robotic Surgery, 15(2), 253–263.
46. Khokhlova, T. D., & Khokhlova, V. A. (2019). Histotripsy: An Emerging Technology for Non-Invasive Mechanical Ablation. Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, 45(6), 1362–1381.
47. Cooperberg, M. R., & Carroll, P. R. (2015). Health Policy and Economic Implications of Prostate Cancer Treatment. Urologic Clinics of North America, 42(3), 381–392.