Standard treatments for prostate cancer include surgical removal of the prostate gland, technically known as radical prostatectomy (RP) (from the ancient Greek -ectomy for cutting out), and radiation therapy. Both forms of therapy aim to destroy prostate tissue. This approach is based on the outdated assumption that when the prostate is removed, the cancer is also completely removed from the body and the patient is thus cured. That this assumption is not correct is shown by the so-called “liquid biopsy”. This procedure can be used to detect cancer cells in the blood of any cancer patient. So they are always distributed throughout the body. Consequently, cancer cells remain in the patient’s body even after the prostate has been removed or the prostate tissue destroyed. This also explains the relatively high recurrence rates (the recurrence of cancer) after surgery and/or radiotherapy (see Han Tables, Johns Hopkins University, Department of Urology: More.)
For this reason, focal therapy is increasingly coming into focus. Here, only the tumor itself is destroyed. The healthy areas of the prostate, and thus the functions of the urogenital tract (which are essential for erectile function and potency), are preserved.
Focal treatments
The principle of focal therapy can be summarized in one question: “Why remove the entire prostate if the cancer is only in one part?” In the treatment of breast cancer, this development has already led to a treatment approach in which only the cancerous tissue and a small area around the cancerous tissue are removed instead of removing the entire breast.
In this way, side effects and complications can also be significantly reduced in the treatment of prostate cancer. The primary goal here is to prevent incontinence and impotence from occurring. Focal treatments are less invasive than prostate removal and are therefore associated with fewer risks and side effects. Complications such as bleeding, infection, and injury to other organs, as well as death, occur less frequently. At the same time, the treatment is less painful, patients recover faster, require less follow-up care and rehabilitation time.
More precise diagnostics and improved MRI technology have made the new treatment methods of focal therapy possible. The idea behind this is to remove only the cancerous tissue if possible and to preserve as much healthy prostate tissue as possible. The success of the treatment depends on accurate diagnostics and precise implementation of the treatment. The healing time is much shorter than for prostatectomy (see 2. IRE). In addition, important functions such as continence and potency can be better preserved with focal therapy.1
Radical treatments
Surgical removal of the prostate is one of the classic treatment methods. In this procedure, the prostate gland, including all the tissue affected by the cancer, is removed. Radiation therapy also follows this philosophy and treats the entire prostate. Hormone and chemotherapy, on the other hand, affect the entire body and are usually used for metastatic prostate cancer.
The idea behind radical prostatectomy is as follows: If the prostate is removed, all the tumor tissue disappears and the cancer is “cured”. Unfortunately, human biology doesn’t work that simply. In any cancer, malignant cells are distributed throughout the body via the blood. Thus, the disease also spreads outside the so-called “prostate capsule”.
Active Surveillance: wait and see
Active Surveillance is offered to patients who are already older and have been diagnosed with low-grade carcinoma. Because tumors in the prostate grow very slowly, it often takes decades before the cancer breaks through the prostate capsule or begins to metastasize. It is therefore often the most sensible treatment to simply continue monitoring the tumor.
Whether patients are suitable for Active Surveillance depends on personal and medical factors. These include a patient’s age, general health, PSA levels at the time of diagnosis, PSA doubling time, Gleason Score, and tumor stage – and, of course, the patient’s own wishes. All these points must be considered and discussed with the attending physician.
1. Guillaumier, Stephanie, et al. “A multicentre study of 5-year outcomes following focal therapy in treating clinically significant nonmetastatic prostate cancer.“European Urology74.4 (2018): 422-429.
IRE (Irreversible Electroporation) is a new technique for tissue ablation. It differs from other procedures such as HIFU (high-intensity focused ultrasound), RFA (radiofrequency ablation), laser treatments and cryoablation. This is because these methods use extreme heat or cold to “melt down” the treated tissue and cause the cells in question to die.
IRE spares the surrounding tissue
IRE selectively destroys cells; other tissue components such as collagen and elastin fibers, basement membranes and the interstitial matrix remain intact and are not affected by the IRE procedure. Nerves close to the prostate and the vascular nerve bundle are thus spared. The bladder, bladder neck, pelvic floor and rectum are also not affected. Thus, side effects such as incontinence and impotence can be avoided in most cases.
Tissue necrosis, as induced by the other methods mentioned above, leads to scarring. This intensifies with each subsequent treatment. Unlike other procedures, IRE treatment does not cause scars. Therefore, the IRE can be repeated many times. Another advantage of IRE is that there is no soreness after treatment. Moreover, IRE therapy does not lead to any complications that would stand in the way of subsequent surgery or radiotherapy.
At Vitus, we use the NanoKnife IRE ablation procedure for IRE treatment. Treatment with NanoKnife is usually completed within 24 hours and requires no further follow-up treatment.
2.1 Irreversible electroporation for tissue ablation – a new development
IRE is approved for use on humans in both the USA and Europe: In the USA, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has recognized the procedure for general tissue ablation. In Europe, it is approved for use by the CE marking. The method is based on the ablation of tissue using strong, short pulsed electric fields.
Reversible electroporation (RE) has been used for decades in cell research to temporarily create pores in cell membranes through which larger molecules can enter the interior of the cell. The pores created by IRE are still considerably larger, so they cannot close again. Water can penetrate the cell in this way until the pressure inside causes it to burst. The molecules that remain after treatment have not been thermally altered, so the body can reuse them.
2.2 Differences to other minimally invasive procedures
With IRE therapy, the treated tissue is not “cooked” as with HIFU and RFA. In the other procedures, the burned tissue triggers typical reactions, such as pain, inflammation and scarring. Sensitive organs in close proximity to the prostate, such as the bladder, rectum, bladder neck, urethra, and vascular nerve bundle, may be affected by other focal therapy procedures. IRE, on the other hand, spares these organs so that they are not affected by the treatment.
IRE does not destroy all the tissue in the treatment area, but enables the selective destruction of cells. The IRE process can be thought of as the demolition of a building that is made of concrete and steel. While previous methods would have collapsed the entire building, IRE removes only the concrete, leaving the steel skeleton intact. Thus, only the walls need to be replaced again. In IRE, all other structures, such as collagen and elastin fibers, basement membranes and interstitial matrix, vessels, nerves, muscles, tendons and connective tissues either remain intact or can regenerate after treatment.
Precise definition of the treatment area
The treatment area for IRE is precisely defined. In this way, the treatment can be precisely narrowed down right from the start. No tissue outside the treatment area is damaged. The transition between the area where cells are destroyed one hundred percent and the surrounding tissue, where no cell damage occurs, consists of only two to three cell layers. For all other ablation methods, whether thermal ablation (HIFU, RFA, laser, etc.), radiation therapy, or proton therapy, this borderline area can be several centimeters in size. There, tissue is partially destroyed and it is unclear whether all cancer cells have been killed.
The advantages of the IRE procedure may lead to the beginning of a new era in cancer treatment. IRE is particularly suitable for prostate treatment because the prostate is a small organ, immediately surrounded by many sensitive structures. IRE is unique because it allows extremely precise treatment and spares surrounding structures. That is why there are minimal side effects.
3.1 Medical progress
The main reason for this discrepancy lies in the speed of medical progress – especially in comparison to the outdated teaching methods used in medical training. Medical knowledge has a half-life of about three years. Physician training, on the other hand, takes at least six years for the first medical degree. Add to that another four to six years of residency training and possibly another three to five years if specializing. In this period of ten or more years, only about 12.5 percent of medical knowledge retains its validity. In addition, at the beginning of their careers, most physicians initially approach innovations and technical progress with skepticism.
3.2 Clinical studies are lengthy
Clinical studies with control groups can take five to ten years for new treatment procedures. For slowly progressing pathological processes, as is the case with prostate cancer, these procedures may take even longer. Often, when the study results are finally available, the method under investigation is already out of date, or errors in the study design are discovered (e.g., because there have been new findings since the study began). Such inconsistencies can then lead to the study results being partially or even completely invalid.
3.3 Multiple influencing factors play a role
Despite these facts, the S3 guidelines for prostate cancer are based on the classic methods for evaluating treatment procedures according to the principles of evidence-based medicine. In addition, many other factors play a role. Take radiation therapy, for example. This method of treatment is well supported financially. In recent years, many hospitals have expanded their corresponding departments and invested several million euros in new, very expensive radiotherapy equipment (linear accelerators). However, new developments in more precise photon therapy have meant that conventional radiotherapy has quickly become obsolete.
However, it is not only hospitals that oppose new developments in radiotherapy. Governments also ignore or impede the dissemination of treatment procedures using photon therapy on the grounds that these procedures have not yet been evaluated carefully enough. If a treatment method is recommended in the S3 guidelines, the appropriate equipment must also be available to treat all patients – but new photon therapy equipment is expensive. If hospitals fail to provide sufficient new equipment, the government will have to subsidize the purchase of photon therapy equipment to replace conventional radiation therapy.
3.4 Predictability of treatment costs
Another reason is that payers (e.g. statutory health insurance funds or private health insurers) prefer to pay for treatments where the subsequent costs can be planned – even if these therapies cost more than cheaper procedures where the number of treatments and subsequent costs are unknown. In this industry, it is easier to maintain the status quo than to implement change.
3.5 Long-term studies are still lacking
Unfortunately, the question of whether focal therapies will be included in the S3 guidelines remains unanswered. For several years now, we believe there has been sufficient scientific evidence on the success of treating prostate cancer with IRE. However, there are no long-term studies to date that can demonstrate clinical results over a period of 10 to 15 years.
This point has been addressed several times by the German Society of Urology. Furthermore, there is a scientific publication from 2017 which, while noting the enormous potential of IRE as a treatment for prostate cancer, advises against its routine or clinical use.1
Nevertheless, focal therapy in general2 and IRE in particular 3,4,5,6,7,8 are published at regular intervals. These scientific publications provide new data on IRE in prostate cancer, and take a more differentiated look at the statistical requirements of clinical evaluation in focal therapies using IRE/NanoKnife.
3.6 Think carefully about prostate removal
There is one figure you should definitely bear in mind if you are considering undergoing a prostatectomy: The survival rate after a prostatectomy is only one percent higher than for patients who have opted for Active Surveillance, i.e. the observation and monitoring of prostate cancer (Urologic Oncology 2012, Focal therapy of prostate cancer: energies and procedures). In our opinion, such an aggressive treatment modality should only be considered when radical therapy is essential to stay alive – and not as a routine treatment of choice.
1. Wendler, J. J., et al. “Why we should not routinely apply irreversible electroporation as an alternative curative treatment modality for localized prostate cancer at this stage.” World journal of urology35.1 (2017): 11-20.
2. Guillaumier, Stephanie, et al. “A multicenter study of 5-year outcomes following focal therapy in treating clinically significant nonmetastatic prostate cancer.” European urology74.4 (2018): 422-429.
3. Scheltema, Matthijs J., et al. (2018). Pair-matched patient-reported quality of life and early oncological control following focal irreversible electroporation versus robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. World Journal of Urology (2018): 1-7.
4. Van den Bos, Willemien; Scheltema, Matthijs J.; Siriwardana, Amila R.; Kalsbeek, Anton M. F.; Thompson, James E.; Ting, Francis et al. (2017): Focal irreversible electroporation as primary treatment for localized prostate cancer. In: BJU international. DOI: 10.1111/bju.13983.
5. Van den Bos, Willemien, et al. “Focal irreversible electroporation as primary treatment for localized prostate cancer.” BJU international 121.5 (2018): 716-724.
6. Scheltema, Matthijs J., et al. “Feasibility and safety of focal irreversible electroporation as salvage treatment for localized radio-recurrent prostate cancer.” BJU international 120 (2017): 51-58.
7 Scheltema, Matthijs, and Jean de la Rosette. “Irreversible Electroporation of Prostate Tumors.” Irreversible Electroporation in Clinical Practice. Springer, Cham, 2018. 215-222.
8. Scheltema, Matthijs J., et al. “Impact on genitourinary function and quality of life following focal irreversible electroporation of different prostate segments.” Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology 24.5 (2018): 268.
4.1 The first steps
NanoKnife treatment must be preceded by an examination of the prostate using a high-resolution multiparameter MRI. If you have not had such an examination, please make an appointment for it as soon as possible. Depending on your medical condition, we additionally recommend a 3D biopsy prior to NanoKnife treatment. Accurate treatment requires detailed MRI scans as well as data obtained by 3D biopsy, if necessary, to accurately determine the location and distribution of the tumor in the prostate in order to perform treatment.
Contact us.
4.2 Biopsy of very small tumors
Many cancer foci are microscopically small and cannot be visualized by imaging techniques, not even by high-resolution MRI. However, they can potentially be detected in a sample taken in biopsy.
4.3 Biopsy not absolutely necessary in some cases
In the case of a large carcinoma that requires ablation of the entire prostate, a 3D biopsy may not be necessary.
If the MRI shows a small cancer focus with a low Gleason score (<7 and samples from other areas negative), a 3D biopsy may also not be necessary. In these cases, although it cannot be excluded that other lesions exist in addition to the main tumor, the so-called index lesion. However, there is evidence to suggest that treating only the index lesion but not the satellite lesions does not decrease patient survival. However, this approach needs to be further examined in individual cases.
If MRI is performed in addition to a transrectal biopsy, consideration should be given to whether a transperineal 3D biopsy is necessary or whether treatment is possible without the additional information obtained. However, without the 3D data, treatment accuracy is reduced.
Here at our facility, we have performed the most prostate cancer treatments with NanoKnife in the world. In total, we have treated about 1400 patients in this way. Summaries of our data regarding side effects (incontinence and impotence) as well as oncological data have already been presented at several congresses. Here you can find a commented presentation from 2015.
In terms of both side effects and oncologic outcomes, our data show significant progress compared with firmly established treatments. However, the data were not collected as part of a clinical trial. Their scientific validity is limited for this reason. Nevertheless, unlike radiation therapy or prostatectomy, IRE is a gentle procedure that works at the cellular level and can be repeated as many times as needed, including recurrences.
No medical procedure can offer a one hundred percent guarantee of success. Human biology is too complex for this and the differences between individual people are too great.
The current, common treatment methods for prostate cancer do not guarantee a cure and have considerable side effects (impotence in around 70 percent of cases, incontinence in 10 to 50 percent of patients). Focal therapy with IRE is therefore a very interesting alternative.
In many cases, IRE treatment may be the best treatment approach because the tumor tissue is only treated within the treatment area and the side effects are therefore very low. Each case is closely monitored for possible side effects such as impotence and incontinence.
However, IRE is not a miracle treatment for all tumors at all stages. We will advise you on all available treatment options for your particular case and stage of disease. Before we begin any treatment, we will discuss with you the various options, your priorities and preferences.
NanoKnife treatment lasts about two hours and is performed under general anesthesia. A bladder catheter will be placed, which will be pulled out by your urologist or by us after about 10 to 14 days. After the treatment you will spend one night under medical supervision in our private clinic. After a total of 24 hours after treatment, you can usually go home. For most patients, NanoKnife treatment does not cause pain, but they find the bladder catheter slightly annoying.
We have already successfully treated many patients. NanoKnife is manufactured by a company called AngioDynamics and is approved by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in the USA as well as in Europe (CE marking) and in Germany (according to the Medical Devices Act). These approvals cover tissue ablation throughout the body, including the prostate. You would therefore by no means be a guinea pig.
IRE is still regarded as an experimental method of focal therapy for prostate cancer because no results of long-term studies are yet available, either for focal therapy in general or for the treatment of prostate cancer using NanoKnife (see point 2).
In view of the poor results achieved by conventional prostate therapies (impotence in 70 percent of patients, incontinence in 10 to 50 percent, a 30 percent relapse rate and an improvement in the 5-year survival rate of only one percent with prostate removal), we have to assume that a new procedure with fewer side effects is better – even if the long-term results are still pending.
At the Prostate Center, now Vitus Privatklinik, in Offenbach, we have treated more than 1400 patients with prostate cancer and have published the results at all major radiology congresses.
Please contact usif you would like us to send you scientific publications.
Please refer to item 2 “What is IRE?”
We regularly treat patients whose tumor has spread to the neighboring structures of the prostate, such as seminal vesicle, pelvic floor, etc.. In most cases, at this tumor stage, it is necessary to perform other treatments, such as anti-hormone therapy, in addition to focal therapy. However, there is evidence that even in the advanced stage of the disease, a reduction in tumor size has a positive effect on the success of treatment.
As IRE does not damage structures such as large blood vessels, even lymph nodes affected by metastases that are located in the immediate vicinity can be treated with the NanoKnife procedure.
IRE can also be combined synergistically with immunotherapy, for example monoclonal antibodies. For more information on this please contact us.
Whether these measures are curative or merely palliative, i.e., whether they contribute to healing or merely alleviate discomfort, depends on the circumstances. Often, combination therapy is the most appropriate approach for advanced stage tumors.
After previous treatment, whether surgical or, for example, using HIFU (high-intensity focused ultrasound), scars often appear, making further surgery difficult. In addition, further surgery or HIFU treatments are often associated with an increased risk of impotence or incontinence. Radiation therapy makes the treated tissue so fragile that surgery is virtually impossible. In addition, it is not possible to repeat conventional radiotherapy immediately after radiation treatment has already been performed. Too much damage would be done to surrounding structures, such as the bowel and bladder.
In these cases, IRE (Irreversible Electroporation) can be used to treat recurrences in a minimally invasive manner, with minimal risks and no additional burden to the patient. IRE thus represents a unique method for the treatment of tumor tissue at otherwise inoperable sites. IRE treatment can be repeated as many times as needed. The only prerequisite for such treatment is precise diagnosis by MRI. We have successfully treated several complicated cases with residual tumor tissue. However, long-term experience and statistics are not yet available for this.
Yes, we have already had great success with the use of NanoKnife in BPH. The advantage of NanoKnife is the selective ablation of cells responsible for hyperplasia. A typical advantage of NanoKnife treatment is that there is hardly any pain involved. This is because only cells are destroyed, but no tissue necrosis is caused in the process. BPH can also be treated at the same time as a tumor. In fact, when tumor and BPH occur at the same time, it often happens automatically.
During surgery or laser treatment, the prostate is accessed from the outside through the urethra (intraprostatic urethral portion). This causes injuries to these organs. In IRE, however, access is through the perineum directly into the BPH in the transition zone. The intraprostatic urethral portion and the seminal mound (colliculus seminalis), which play an important role in ejaculation, remain uninjured.
In Germany, statutory health insurers generally only cover the costs of treatment procedures recommended in the S3 guidelines for prostate cancer. These are prostatectomy, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and hormone therapy. In some cases, the local statutory health insurances cover the costs abroad.
We recommend that you discuss your individual case with your health insurance company and negotiate coverage. Treatment costs for prostatectomy may be much more expensive than successful focal therapy, both in the short term (hospitalization costs) and in the longer term (treatment complications, permanent damage).
The cost of multiparameter MRI, 3D biopsy, and NanoKnife treatment depends heavily on the individual case. For an assessment in your case and an accurate estimate please contact Contact us
General anesthesia is required for the muscles to relax and for the IRE procedure to be performed safely. Therefore, the health limiting factors for IRE treatment are the normal risks associated with general anesthesia. Therefore, the question of whether general anesthesia is possible must be clarified by the responsible anesthesiologist. It is therefore necessary that a health assessment be performed prior to treatment, including diagnostic tests such as a stress ECG, blood tests, X-ray, ultrasound, etc. A full cardiology examination may also be required to provide a full assessment of your general health and anesthetic capability.
If you are interested in IRE treatment and/or a personal consultation, please contact us please.
Radical prostatectomy, also known as prostate surgery or DaVinci surgery, is a surgical procedure to remove the prostate gland. It is often thought that this surgery can “cure” prostate cancer by completely removing the prostate gland where the cancer is located. However, cancer can recur in the same location even after the prostate is removed, which is called local recurrence. Prostate cancer is systemic and can spread throughout the body. Doctors cannot reliably find or destroy individual cancer cells scattered throughout the body. Treatment is therefore aimed at reducing the tumor mass and allowing the immune system to attack the remaining tumor cells. The choice of treatment modality, be it radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy or other, is less critical than the reduction of tumor mass. It is important to understand that radical prostatectomy is not always the best option and alternative approaches such as focal therapy or watchful waiting should be considered.
Read more …
CyberKnife is an advanced stereotactic radiation system used to treat prostate cancer. Compared to Irreversible Electroporation (IRE) of the prostate, a gentler alternative, CyberKnife has some disadvantages. While IRE is minimally invasive and does not use ionizing radiation, CyberKnife radiation therapy can cause genetic damage to adjacent tissues, leading to chronic inflammation and scarring, particularly in the bladder and rectum. This damage complicates further treatments in the irradiation field and can impair wound healing. The side effects of CyberKnife are comparable to those of radical prostatectomy, although incontinence rates may be higher with CyberKnife than with IRE. As first-line therapy, CyberKnife may not always be the best choice and should be considered more in older or frail men for whom anesthesia may be too much of a burden.
Read more …
Proton therapy (PT) is a modern form of radiation therapy that uses accelerated protons instead of photons (X-rays or gamma rays) to treat malignant tumors. One of the main advantages of PT is that protons release their energy only after a certain depth of penetration into the body. depth of penetration into the body, thus sparing the surrounding healthy tissue. Despite these advantages, proton therapy may not be the optimal choice for treating prostate cancer. Compared to Irreversible Electroporation (IRE), an alternative treatment for prostate cancer, PT has some disadvantages. IRE is a gentle technique that does not use ionizing radiation and has minimal side effects. PT usually requires a longer treatment period and can cause genetic damage to surrounding tissues, leading to chronic inflammation and scarring. Therefore, PT may not be the best option for prostate cancer patients, especially when alternative treatments such as IRE are available.
Read more …
DaVinci robotic prostatectomy, also known as robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) or DaVinci surgery, is a minimally invasive surgical method for treating prostate cancer. This technique uses a special surgical robot called DaVinci to remove the prostate. Compared to traditional open radical prostatectomy, which requires a larger abdominal incision, RARP allows for smaller incisions and more precise movements by the surgeon.
Although RARP is promoted as an advanced technique, there are some important considerations and disadvantages when compared to traditional radical prostatectomy and other treatment modalities:
Erectile dysfunction and incontinence: despite the minimally invasive nature of RARP, erectile dysfunction (impotence) and urinary incontinence are still common side effects. These may occur due to damage to the neurovascular bundle and the sphincter of the urinary bladder.
Surgical technique and positioning: RARP requires that the patient be turned upside down to allow unobstructed access for the robotic arms. This “Trendelenburg” positioning may be uncomfortable for some patients and may be associated with additional risks, such as muscle injury, increased intraocular pressure, and cardiovascular stress.
Long-term effects: The long-term effects of RARP compared with other treatment modalities, particularly in terms of survival rates and complications, have not been adequately studied.
Alternative treatment options: There are alternative treatment options for prostate cancer, such as focal therapy, in which the tumor is targeted while the prostate is largely preserved. Such focal therapy may have fewer side effects in some patients.
Overall, the decision to use RARP should be carefully weighed, and it is important to consider the advantages and disadvantages compared with other prostate cancer treatments. The choice of treatment often depends on individual factors such as tumor stage, patient age, and personal preferences.
Read more …
Nerve-sparing prostatectomy is a surgical technique for removing the prostate that aims to spare important nerve structures, particularly the neurovascular bundle (NVB). This technique is used to reduce the two most common side effects of prostatectomy, erectile dysfunction (impotence) and urinary incontinence. These side effects usually result from damage to nerves and anatomical structures during the surgical procedure.
Nerve-sparing prostatectomy differs from traditional radical prostatectomy, which removes the entire prostate gland by attempting to preserve as much as possible the NVB and other nerve structures responsible for penile erection and bladder control. This is done using precise incisions and dissection techniques.
There are two main methods of nerve-sparing prostatectomy:
Interfascial nerve-sparing prostatectomy: In this method, the prostate is dissected between the endopelvic fascia (EF), a layer of connective tissue surrounding the prostate, and the prostatic fascia (PF). The NVB and prostatic pedicle (PP) are partially preserved.
Intrafascial nerve-sparing prostatectomy: Here, the prostate is dissected between the prostatic fascia (PF) and the prostatic capsule (PC). This also allows partial preservation of the NVB and prostatic pedicle.
Despite these efforts to spare the nerve structures, the results are not always perfect. A certain percentage of patients still suffer from erectile dysfunction and/or urinary incontinence after nerve-sparing prostatectomy. The reasons for this are varied and may be due to the complex anatomy of the NVB and to nerve structures outside the NVB that cannot always be fully spared.
Read more …
Radio-ligand therapy (RLT) uses lutetium-177 (Lu-177) labeled PSMA antagonists to treat advanced prostate cancer. This therapy directs therapeutic radiation directly at cancer cells that have the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) on their surface. Suitable patients are often those for whom other treatments no longer work. PSMA status is verified by Ga-68-PSMA ligand PET/CT examination prior to therapy. Lu-177 PSMA therapy is an individualized cure and may have side effects, but early results show promising results with acceptable side effect rates.
Read more …