Connect
← Return to Focal Cryotherapy vs RARP
Discussion
Comment receiving replies
Although I like the idea of focal cryotherapy, four cores of ‘4’ is pretty substantial - and those scores are just from the targeted cores.
Also, the percentages of abnormal cells is also a factor. A higher number could indicate more neoplastic tissue present in the rest of the gland.
I only know one person who had cryotherapy and it was done by a surgeon on Long Island, NY who was a loud advocate for the procedure. It did not turn out well for him and his cancer became oligometastatic.
Of course, this is only ONE case and there are probably many successes. Your surgeon is correct, however, in that cryotherapy usually requires more procedures in the future. Best of luck on your decision.
Phil
Replies to "Although I like the idea of focal cryotherapy, four cores of ‘4’ is pretty substantial -..."
Connect
Thanks Phil. I asked my surgeon about the number of cores with Gleason 4 cells. He said that all four came from the same target lesion so probably just a sampling thing not an indication of spread throughout the prostate because all the random cores were negative. They said, he still could not guarantee that there were not other cancer cells outside the target lesion. This the reason for lower long term success rates with focal therapies. He used to be at NYU and said that focal cryotherapy was popular with wealthy men who wanted to minimize erection and incontinence side effects. The research on it's long term effectiveness is lacking.