Surgical Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Narrative Review of Literature

Le résumé fourni par la source

Introduction: Surgical management of prostate cancer has evolved significantly over more than a century, transitioning from open procedures to modern robot-assisted techniques. This narrative review traces the historical progression of surgical treatments for localized prostate cancer, from early approaches to the most recent advancements. Materials and Methods: An extensive literature search was conducted from 1 April to 1 June 2025, using PubMed and cross-referencing citations. The search gathered studies on the evolution of prostate cancer surgery, technical aspects, and comparisons between surgical and non-surgical treatments. Keywords included “PROSTATE CANCER”, “PROSTATE CANCER SURGICAL TREATMENT”, “RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY EVOLUTION”, “ROBOT-ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY”, and “FOCAL THERAPY AND PROSTATE CANCER”. Results: A total of 65 manuscripts, including original articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical trials focusing on the surgical treatment of localized prostate cancer, were selected. The review begins with the history of prostatic surgery, chronicling its evolution through laparoscopic and, ultimately, robotic approaches. It highlights how improved visualization and new technologies have led to better functional outcomes and preservation of structures while maintaining oncological safety. A specific focus is placed on the technical evolution of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, new robotic platforms, and the role of focal therapy as an ultra-minimally invasive technique for localized disease. Conclusions: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy represents the current reference surgical technique for localized prostate cancer. However, it is crucial to acknowledge RALP’s elevated cost and the need for further long-term, randomized data to establish definitive oncological equivalence compared to non-surgical options.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.