In a past life, I worked in prostate cancer ("PCa") clinical research. To drive home the point about how large of an unmet need this is:
A) In addition to 1/6 men being diagnosed with PCa, an ~equally large percentage of men have undiagnosed cancer at the time of death, it just wasn't severe enough yet to be the thing that killed them. (1)
B) Because treatment carries a 50% risk of sexual and/or urinary dysfunction side effects, the standard of care in the US for PCa is literally to leave the cancer untreated and monitor it closely, until it develops into an aggressive cancer. At that point, we treat the entire prostate (the opposite of "focal" therapy referenced in this article) and all bets are off re: side effects. Also, often by that time, the cancer has spread outside of the prostate and is much more difficult to treat.
Most current cancer treatment methods we have are basically sledgehammers with loads of collateral damage - it’s not surprising the preference is to leave it if it’s benign.
My father died from metastasized prostate cancer. If/when I get it I won’t do “watchful waiting”. I’m going to get the most aggressive treatment possible.
A) In addition to 1/6 men being diagnosed with PCa, an ~equally large percentage of men have undiagnosed cancer at the time of death, it just wasn't severe enough yet to be the thing that killed them. (1)
B) Because treatment carries a 50% risk of sexual and/or urinary dysfunction side effects, the standard of care in the US for PCa is literally to leave the cancer untreated and monitor it closely, until it develops into an aggressive cancer. At that point, we treat the entire prostate (the opposite of "focal" therapy referenced in this article) and all bets are off re: side effects. Also, often by that time, the cancer has spread outside of the prostate and is much more difficult to treat.
(1) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246829422...